Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2012

[Rick Christopher]

That's correct.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

—so that if they are entitled, they can receive that benefit.

[Rick Christopher]

That's right, and they have to have the reasons for the decision.

[Eve Adams, Conservative, Mississauga—Brampton South, ON]

Of course.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Casey for five minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Christopher, in the course of your remarks, you indicated that once a matter goes in front of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the final decision-making authority is permanently removed from the department. Section 85 of the Pension Act allows for a reconsideration. It actually allows for VRAB to send it back to the department. Can you square the apparent inconsistency between what section 85 says and what you've said?

[Rick Christopher]

My understanding is that once something is referred formally to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the minister no longer has jurisdiction to rule on that.

[Bernard Butler]

If I might, Mr. Casey, you're absolutely right. I think that what Mr. Christopher was saying essentially is that in the normal course, once the matter goes to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, the board becomes seized of the jurisdiction of the case. There is the provision that if there's an issue and the board chooses to refer it back to the department, the department could become engaged, but in the normal course of proceedings, once the veteran elects to have his case dealt with by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, unless the board should refer it back formally to the department, then the department would not have jurisdiction otherwise. I think that essentially was the message.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Christopher, another thing you said troubles me a bit, as someone who practised law for most of his career.

You indicated the real test in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, if I understand correctly, is the balance of probabilities—whether it is more likely than not that a claim should be approved. You indicated that once you get to that balance of probabilities, you apply a doubt in favour of the veteran. In other words, if it's 50-50, then and only then does the benefit of the doubt apply. Do I have that right?

[Rick Christopher]

I wouldn't say “balance of probabilities”. It's not a probability. The adjudicators are trained to look at and consider all of the evidence. They may have medical opinions or incident reports, and they may have some that contradict each other or do not clarify. At the end, in some cases in which there is evidence for and against, they weigh it, and then they are to apply the benefit of the doubt.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Did you not say that when the case is 50-50, the veteran gets the benefit of the doubt? Did I hear you say that?

[Rick Christopher]

No, I never used the words “50-50”. I don't know if there are any cases that would be 50-50.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

Then you wouldn't agree with my characterization that the standard that is applied within the department is the balance of probabilities. You wouldn't agree with that.

[Rick Christopher]

I would say that each case is completely different. There is complicated evidence that each adjudicator has to look at. They are instructed to apply the benefit of the doubt if there's contradictory evidence.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Okay.

Each of you would have seen the pretty extensive report that was done by the ombudsman, dated March 2012. It includes some very damning statistics and seven recommendations. I would be a little bit surprised if you disagreed with the statement that there are problems within the Veterans Review and Appeal Board that need to be addressed. That's why we're here.

My question for each of you is this: are the problems within the Veterans Review and Appeal Board structural, or are they personnel problems?

[Bernard Butler]

Perhaps I will go first.

It may well be inappropriate, Mr. Casey, for us to comment on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board at that level, given the nature of its work. It would obviously be very difficult for us to weigh in on that as public servants. It's an independent, quasi-judicial agency, as has already been noted. Certainly we'll look at the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations of this committee based on your review.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Okay, time is up, unless, Mr. Christopher, you want to respond as well. Thank you very much.

Next is Mr. Lobb. You have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I would like to acknowledge all the men and women here who serve with the Canadian Forces. Thank you for all your service to Canada. It certainly is appreciated, and I want to make sure you are acknowledged here today in the room.

The first question is to Mr. Christopher. Of the 20,000 claims per year that are filed, how many are filed correctly the first time? Do you track that number?

[Rick Christopher]

No, I don't have a statistic on that, although I would say that we do a very good job of getting all the information we need. The disability pension officers who work in the area offices provide that assistance.

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

All right. Just so I have a rough idea here, 46 adjudicators work at Veterans Affairs Canada. How many people would support those 46 people?

[Rick Christopher]

I don't have an exact figure. There would be a fair number of people—

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

Would it be 150?

[Rick Christopher]

It would be somewhere in that ballpark.

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

Okay.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the math and the who, what, where, when, and why. If your department deals with 20,000 applicants every year and you have a 75% success rate, that would be 15,000 a year that are approved right off the bat, and 5,000 would go to VRAB. It's my understanding that about 65% of those come back in favour of the veteran. We've looked at 20,000. Now we're down to 1,250 that have actually been rejected. Annually, we spend $11.5 million on VRAB's budget. I'm going to guess that we probably spend that much again on the Veterans Affairs budget to go through all these. We're spending somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million to get this done.

As a taxpayer, with fairness to veterans, where has the process gone wrong and how can we improve it? We're spending all this money, yet literally more than 80% of them actually get approved. What can we do to improve the process? Where are we going wrong that so many are turned down and then overturned?

[Rick Christopher]

I don't know. I have no opinion on where we're going wrong. We have to make sure that they meet the tests, that the disability is linked to their service and that there is a disability. We have to make sure that we assess the impact of that disability. There are legislative requirements to do these things.