Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2012

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Casey.

Go ahead, Mr. Lizon, for five minutes.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

To start, I would like to thank all the veterans present here for their service to our great country. Thank you to the witnesses for appearing, and I thank you for your work for the veterans.

I would like to ask a question along the same lines that the parliamentary secretary asked. It is on the number of cases. You mentioned that you made a number of decisions, about 7,000 a year. Is the number of new cases a year the same as the number of decisions?

[John D. Larlee]

The number of decisions is 4,900—

[Dale Sharkey]

They are roughly the same. We have no backlogs of work, so what comes in generally goes out in a year.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

There are no backlogs, so it's about 4,000 or 5,000. If I did my math correctly, you mentioned that since 1995 there were over 119,000 decisions. Is that correct?

[John D. Larlee]

Yes, 118,000 decisions were delivered.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Yes, that would bring the average to 7,000. Does that mean that the number of cases in recent years has decreased significantly?

[John D. Larlee]

That's correct. There have been peaks over the years in the number of decisions. My director, Ms. Sharkey, can perhaps give you a better history of the numbers.

[Dale Sharkey]

I don't have all of the details with me, but I note that since 1998, when I started with the board, we had a peak of between 9,000 and 10,000 decisions a year. It would go down to 7,000, back up to 8,000, down to 6,000, so over time it has decreased. As I said, we're at 4,900 this year; last year it was approximately the same. There have been a lot of peaks and valleys.

Much of the volume depends very much on the number of first applications that are made with the department. For example, last year they rendered between 35,000 and 40,000 decisions that were appealable to the board, and we received about 10% of those.

It's also difficult to predict volume because veterans need only be dissatisfied, and there's no time limit within which they must appeal. They may decide to appeal 25 years after they've received a decision or they may appeal within a year. They don't have to come to the board and prove they have an error in fact or law, or bring new evidence; they need only be dissatisfied. I think that's part and parcel of the fluctuation, but it greatly depends on the volume at the department. It also depends on how representatives deal with the applicants in terms of counselling them in or out, based on the strength of their cases.

Another element that's played into the decrease in numbers is that a larger proportion of our cases, the more straightforward ones, go to a departmental review. I believe Mr. Butler probably spoke about the departmental review, an administrative redress mechanism within the department. I think over 2,000 cases were done at departmental review; in years past they might have done a few hundred, and those cases would have been at the board. It's a better process for them to go to the department. They get all of their appeal rights if they're still dissatisfied.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

How does this reflect on your annual budget? Taking into consideration the fact that you have a fluctuating number of cases and they're unpredictable, how do you deal with it? Do you have a set budget? Does it increase? Does it decrease? How do you deal with it?

Mr. Larlee, you mentioned in your remarks that you do a tremendous amount of work with rather limited resources. If you could, put this together and maybe shed some light on what you meant exactly.

[John D. Larlee]

First of all, the budget has remained the same since 1995, I believe.

[Dale Sharkey]

Yes. In 2006 we had a slight adjustment, but it's pretty well been stable since 1995.

[John D. Larlee]

We have managed to carry out our work with those funds. As I say, our work is mostly the cost of our members in travelling the country to provide hearings in over 30 locations and in conducting our appeals in Charlottetown, as well as the cost of our support staff, including people who do quality analysis of our decisions.

Part of that, of benefit to the veterans as well, is that in recent years, with the modern CF veteran, the conditions and the cases that come before our tribunal are much more complicated and require more work. As a result of the shift from the traditional veteran to the modern-day veteran and to the serving Canadian Forces members as well as the RCMP, those funds in the budget are well used to make sure that those veterans receive their decisions in a timely and fair fashion. We worked, as I said in my comments, to reduce the timelines. We use modern technology, and the money is well spent to make sure that veterans get their benefits.

With regard to how the transition from the percentage of traditional veterans to modern-day veterans has gone, I think Ms. Sharkey has the percentages that give us exactly how those are divided.

[Dale Sharkey]

Yes. Unlike the department, the majority of the applicants who come to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board are Canadian Forces members or former members. About 86% of our applications come from that group; about 8% are traditional veterans, and 7% are RCMP. As you can appreciate, the traditional veterans number has steadily decreased and the modern-day or Canadian Forces members, former and still serving, number has increased.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Ms. Sharkey.

Mr. Lizon, you got more time than anybody else today, so don't give me that look.

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

I'm just surprised.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Before we go on, I'd like to welcome the substitute members today: Ms. Tilly O'Neill Gordon, Mr. Lapointe, and Mr. Côté. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Lapointe, you're up next. You have five minutes.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

It's a real pleasure.

As a guest, today....

Do you speak French?

[A voice]

Oui.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Okay.

Since I am here today as a guest, I will present more of an outside perspective—in other words, it will be less specific than that of my colleague, Mr. Stoffer. My questions will be more generic, but I think they will be relevant.

It seemed to me—perhaps because I have no expertise on the topic—that the percentage of cases brought before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board—between 10 and 15%—was fairly high. Can we make a comparison with countries that use a relatively similar process, such as Australia? Of course, I am not talking about comparing Canada and Bangladesh.

[Dale Sharkey]

I don't have any kind of information like that. Every organization has its own legislative scheme, and it might be difficult to compare to the United States or Australia on the basis of numbers. I don't have those numbers. Also, the base of veterans would make a huge difference—for example, Australia has millions of veterans—compared to what the base might be in Canada. I don't have that information.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

I was talking about the percentage. I understand that Canada has fewer veterans than the United States.

One issue worries me a little bit. You talked about holding hearings through a system similar to Skype. Have older veterans been asked whether they were comfortable with that way of testifying regarding cases that, sometimes, have been going on for years?

[John D. Larlee]

In terms of hearings, I am talking about videoconferences.

Video conferencing is done through a secure system. It wouldn't be done through Skype.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

That resolves the confidentiality issue in principle, and I am very happy to hear it. However, I wanted to discuss the simple fact that those people have to debate their issues on camera. I am mainly referring to older veterans. This used to be my area of expertise, and I know it can be very difficult to get older people to use new technologies.

Have those people been asked if they are comfortable with that approach?

[John D. Larlee]

We currently provide veterans with options. Occasionally, it is faster for them to use that system than to wait for our members to arrive in their region of the country.