Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2012

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

What kind of a difference are we talking about, in terms of time, if an individual prefers to appear before the board in person instead of electronically? Are we talking about a difference of a few weeks or a few months?

[John D. Larlee]

With the videoconference option, the hearing may be held within a few weeks or a few months. However, the schedule we follow for visiting cities across the country is set in advance. So it may take a few months for a veteran to obtain a hearing.

As a result of the board responding to what was going on at the department with respect to transformation and the deficit reduction action plan, we, on our own, have been working on this process redesign project. One of the aspects of the project is to look at the possibility of using video conferencing in more of our hearings. At present, we are conducting a survey on whether or not veterans are interested in it. We've also asked our stakeholders. We've asked the Royal Canadian Legion and others to give us feedback.

To date, the veteran has agreed to do it by video conference on a voluntary basis. As the technology improves, it makes it much more adaptable. It's quite remarkable.

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

I understand the accounting parameters imposed on your organization. I understand that. I am not completely comfortable with the idea itself, but that does not take anything away from your work. I understand the parameters you have to follow.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Go ahead, Mr. Lapointe, very briefly.

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

It's a very brief one.

I just want to know, when it comes to the case that has now come up three times and when it comes to the fact that you have decided yourself to pay for the costs of training, are there are any guidelines from the current government in terms of standards, with regard to what can be covered and what is not? Is that clear, or do you always feel like you are following a somewhat random formula?

[John D. Larlee]

It is very clear. It is always a matter of following orders from the Treasury Board Secretariat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much. That's put us out of time.

Now we'll go to Mr. Lobb, please, for five minutes.

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

Thanks very much.

In the first hour I asked Mr. Butler a question, and what he said was that some of these—and I don't know if he used the words “a lot” or “some of these”—cases that go to VRAB are cases in which a veteran has received, say, 20% for disability, but wants to go for 25%. That's what the veteran feels the disability is.

Of all the cases that come to VRAB, what percentage of those are that particular case?

[John D. Larlee]

It's quite a substantial number, I'm sure, because when we talk about favourable decisions, an individual could receive a favourable decision giving a certain percentage and still not be satisfied, and then he would be entitled to come back to the tribunal to go to the next level.

Keep in mind that we have various levels. We have our review, we have our appeal, and we have our reconsideration, so the individual could be coming at each level.

In answer to your question, I'd refer to Ms. Sharkey to see if those kinds of statistics are kept.

[Dale Sharkey]

We don't have statistics or any means to track what you're suggesting. I do know that roughly 30% of our caseload relates to assessments—

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

I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I find it hard to believe that we don't know this. Why can't it be tracked?

I'm going to take a very simplistic approach here. If I were on the board, when the document came on my table, I'd say, “This person was rejected and received nothing” or “This person received 20% and is going for 25%” and put a tick in either one box or the other to track it. Is there a reason that it's more complicated than I understand?

[Dale Sharkey]

I don't believe there's a reason. I think it was just information that no one felt needed to be tracked because it's based on entitlement, and we look at what you're entitled to under the law. I—

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

I'm sorry again. It's just because my time is limited.

On the flip side, then, there's no way to know how many of these potential 5,000 cases per year haven't received anything yet, and have not been awarded anything at this time.

[Dale Sharkey]

I can look into it and get back to the committee. I'm happy to see if there is a way to do that. Given the way the information is recorded, I'm skeptical that there is, but certainly we can look into it.

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

Okay.

The other thing is this, and I'm really trying to make it simplistic because I'm having another tough time understanding it.

In our previous hour, Veterans Affairs mentioned that it's very important to get the case in. An adjudicator would look at it, and if there's not enough information to make a good decision, it potentially could be rejected. Then, if they decide they want to go directly to VRAB, it goes to you folks. At that point, the veteran is required to get more information.

Is the onus on the veteran to get more information, or do you folks help them get the information? Let's say it's a meeting with a specialist; who helps them get that?

[John D. Larlee]

The veteran has an obligation to bring his case forward. In response to your—

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

In that case, if the file has been deemed insufficient or lacking by the adjudicator, who is responsible to get that file or meet with the specialist or do whatever? Who's responsible at that point in time?

[John D. Larlee]

The veteran, the applicant, has access to the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Those are the lawyers who are provided to the veterans. That would be the role of the lawyer from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, or of the service officers from the Royal Canadian Legion who prepare the individual's case to come before the board.

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

I'm just trying to get your opinion coming at it from a Veterans Affairs standpoint.

If I were an adjudicator and I was missing something that would really help me find in favour of a veteran, why wouldn't I call up the veteran and say, “Jimmy, you're looking good here, but you're missing a document. Go to your specialist and get it done.”

I know that in the case of passports, if they're missing something or if the picture isn't right, they call the person and say, “Get your picture fixed. It's file number such-and-such.” They send it, and it gets approved.

From your standpoint, wouldn't it make the whole system a lot simpler if we were to just fix it at the Veterans Affairs point? Then it wouldn't have to come to you folks. Am I missing something?

[John D. Larlee]

That would be a question for Veterans Affairs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Lobb. You had a good line of questioning going there.

We now go to Mr. Hayes for five minutes, please.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be clear on the math. I was under the impression that 20,000 cases a year are heard by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but you're telling me that 4,900 decisions were made this year, representing a 10% to 15% appeal rate. It seems to me that appealing 4,900 decisions is a lot higher than a 10% or 15% appeal rate.

I first want to understand how many decisions actually get appealed.

[John D. Larlee]

I'll ask Ms. Sharkey to answer that, but I think the department deals with more than the numbers you quoted.

[Dale Sharkey]

I'm quoting numbers from Veterans Affairs Canada.

I believe that when they talk about 20,000, they're referring to first applications, when veterans make their first applications to receive entitlement. However, there are also reassessments and departmental reviews, and all of these have appeal rights to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, so that adds up to somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 applications over the past two years.

[Bryan Hayes, Conservative, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Okay.

Earlier I asked department officials if they could do more up front to reduce the number of appeals. In your mindset, can department officials do more up front to reduce the number of appeals coming your way?

I'm guessing that you must have a sense of a standard theme in appeals coming your way. It would seem logical that....

Ideally our goal, collectively, would be fewer appeals. That would be classified as efficiency, and I think what we're all shooting for is efficiency. Based on your experience, can department officials do more to lessen the number of appeals?