Veterans Affairs Committee on March 8th, 2012

[Guy Parent]

That's a good question, Mr. Chair.

On that particular issue, in every meeting with the minister it's certainly a subject that we talk about. We have been told they were working on it. Again, this is easily understandable, at this point in time, for the financial aspect of this program.

However, as I said before, some recommendations of the report have nothing to do with finance. They have to do with the administration of the benefit. For instance, people have to go to a coupon-cutting exercise. There are only so many dollars for flowers, so many dollars for caskets, so many dollars for the minister or the priest. People who are mourning at that point in time shouldn't be subjected to that aspect of it.

The approach from DND is that all of that is submitted as one, and then they pay for a certain amount and that's it. That was one of the things.

One of the recommendations had to do with recognizing the impact of cumulative or numerous injuries on the body over a period of 40 to 50 years. It would be certainly fair to recognize that as the cause of death, rather than to be specific on what actual injury caused death.

We're more disappointed with the inaction on those recommendations than the ones that have to do with the financial aspect. But we'll keep working with the minister to try to get some movement on that, and hopefully this committee will as well.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

You've heard, as I think everyone has, that the justification for the decrease in the budget of Veterans Affairs going forward is the death rate among the traditional veterans. I know you've written on this, so I'm basically giving you a chance, if you will, to expound on your view of that explanation.

Do you understand what my question is?

[Guy Parent]

Yes. It's a very good question.

In fact, Mr. Chair, I've expressed that position before the office. We think to look strictly at the assumption that the population will diminish and there will be less requirement for resources is wrong, because there are other populations that will increase the number of clients of Veterans Affairs.

I know for a fact, after a career in the forces—and many people will probably support me on this—that many people who are suffering right now in service are not declaring their injuries because they would be, again, subject to the universality of service and kicked out. When all of these people retire, they will be declaring their injuries and therefore accessing benefits from that.

There are people now who are retired from the armed forces and who have not yet exhibited symptoms of PTSD or other psychological injuries, but they will in the next few years, especially if you look at the number of people who were in Afghanistan. So that will also increase some of those clients of Veterans Affairs Canada.

To date, there are still some people from World War II who are applying for benefits, who have suffered in silence for many years. All of a sudden they realize that they've been limping since 1947, so maybe it is because of their service, and they're still applying for benefits.

To assume the population is going to be smaller.... Yes, we realize it's the reality that we lose 1,200 veterans of World War II every month. But, again, with all of these other things in the hamper and the complexity of the modern cases that have to do with co-morbidity and very intricate case management aspects, this will certainly increase the workload.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much. We are beyond time on that as well.

We go to Mr. Lobb for four minutes.

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

Mr. Hillier, if a veteran has gone through the process and has been denied, has gone through VRAB and has been denied, his or her next opportunity is to go through the court system.

[Keith Hillier]

That's correct.

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

Who pays for the veteran's court costs, the legal fees?

[Keith Hillier]

The veteran. Once it goes to court, the veteran is responsible.

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

Okay, so the veteran pays. If he's successful at court, he has the opportunity to go back to the VRAB and plead his case at that point in time again.

[Keith Hillier]

No. The way it would generally work, Mr. Chair, is that a case could go to the Federal Court. The person would not be represented by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates before the Federal Court. In fact, the court normally would either agree with the decision of the review and appeal board or in fact would refer the case back to the review and appeal board, which sort of means, we don't agree with you.

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

Right. That's what I meant when I said it goes back to the VRAB again.

[Keith Hillier]

Yes.

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

Then if he or she is successful at the VRAB, do the court costs that took place prior to that get reimbursed?

[Keith Hillier]

I don't want to speak on behalf of the VRAB. I'm not part of that institution.

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

Okay, but the department does not reimburse those legal fees incurred by the veteran.

[Keith Hillier]

Not that I'm aware of. I don't know if in fact the judge in a ruling might assign costs.

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

Mr. Parent, given your document here, your report, “Veterans’ Right to Know Reasons for Decisions - a Matter of Procedural Fairness”, are you reasonably satisfied that the department is moving in the right direction to meet the needs that are specifically laid out here in your report?

[Guy Parent]

Yes. Moving in the right direction, Mr. Chair, I think would be a fair comment.

We have mechanisms in place, as a follow-up action to the report, to look at decisions, letters that will be produced in the next month or so. Normally we look at a six-month period. Certainly we'll be getting back to the department to see how satisfied we are with the actions to date.

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

I have two quick questions. In the 2009 report from the former ombudsman, he commented about eligibility for the permanent impairment allowance. There were changes made both in dollars and in eligibility in the enhanced Veterans Charter that came out last year. Are you reasonably satisfied with those changes for eligibility for the permanent impairment allowance?

[Guy Parent]

Mr. Chair, any improvements to the new Veterans Charter are welcome. Given the fact that it was supposed to be a living document that was on life support for five years, it was nice to see that there are finally some improvements that were made.

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

Okay. That's a good segue into my last question, if time permits. When do you think is the next time this committee should start to look at the charter again?

[Guy Parent]

Certainly in time for the review. I think the review is mandated for two years in the legislation. I'm not sure what the timeframe is, but we are certainly going to be prepared to produce something to have some kind of presentation to the committee for that timeframe.

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

So at some point in time in 2013 you think it would be reasonable if the committee started to take another look at the charter.

[Guy Parent]

Yes, definitely.

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

Do I have any time left, Mr. Chair?