Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 1st, 2012

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

Yes.

Thanks for coming.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We'll go to Mr. Hayes for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This first question is to Mr. Christopher. It goes back to that 73% again.

You stated that you were “pleased to advise” that 73% of the total applications reviewed were assessed as favourable, so I imagine that statistically there must be some reason for you to feel that you're pleased. Is this trend, then, trending upward so that more and more applications through the year on a first-time basis are assessed as favourable?

[Rick Christopher]

I can't identify a trend. What I would say, though, is that when a higher number of first applications are approved and a lesser number come through as appeals or reviews, it means that you're making a proper decision the first time.

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

I'm new to this committee and I'm in the learning mode. I really don't understand the appeal process. Could you outline what a veteran goes through to launch an appeal?

[Rick Christopher]

To request a departmental review, it's a matter of filling out a form and providing additional information. They can submit that directly to the department on their own. They can also engage somebody from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, which, as we mentioned earlier, is a service with no charge. It's free to the applicant, and they would advise them what the best course of action would be.

It's a matter of filling out some forms and providing information that would support the request for a review. They would get correspondence from us saying they were assessed at a certain rate, as well as whether the decision was positive or whether their claim was declined, and the reasons for that, and then they could address those in their appeal.

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

I want to go back to Mr. Lobb's line of questioning, because statistically it seems that 65% of the appeals that are launched are coming back in favour of the veteran. It raises the question of whether Veterans Affairs Canada could be doing something better or different up front, at the beginning of the chain, so that these individuals wouldn't launch an appeal in the first place.

Certainly you must have a pretty strong sense of what it is that's being appealed and why it's being appealed.

[Bernard Butler]

Perhaps I'll speak to that quickly. It's a very good question.

Of course, as you know, the department is engaged in many initiatives right now around transformation and trying to improve service delivery, improve our communication to veterans, and improve our policy framework so that adjudicators have easy access to updated, clear-speaking policies. We're doing a lot of things internally to help facilitate the adjudication process.

That said, there is a lot.... One has to understand the reasons cases are dealt with favourably at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and have a different outcome from what they do at the departmental level.

A lot of those reasons relate to basic things, such as new evidence. The advantage of the system currently is that at the departmental level, a departmental adjudicator, as Mr. Christopher has referred to, will look at the evidence available, make a decision, and provide very clear reasons to the veteran as to why he or she is not qualifying. Those can be very simple things. It can be because there is not clarity around what the medical diagnosis is—in other words, what is the disability? There may be very little evidence on the record to show that this individual in fact had a service-related injury, for any number of reasons.

At the Veterans Review and Appeal Board level, the difference is that at their first level, which is called a review level, the veteran, for the first time, has the opportunity to actually appear in person before a review panel and provide oral evidence with respect to the issues that were identified by the department.

That's the first time in the process that the veteran is actually present. He can look in the whites of the eyes of the tribunal members and give clear evidence to fill in the gaps. Clearly, at that point, it's a new perspective. There is new information. There is a better opportunity to assess the credibility of the witnesses in terms of their recollection of events and so on.

That's a simple example of why, at the review level of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a fixed percentage of cases are favourable. If we did that at the front end, the problem or the challenge is that you would then delay the first adjudication for many veterans, particularly those for whom the outcome is very clear and who make up the 75% favourable cases that Mr. Christopher refers to. There is always a balancing process in these administrative types of decision-making, and one is challenged to find the best one, the one that works most favourably to the veteran.

There are always opportunities for improvement, but right now this is the system. We're trying to reduce the processing times at the front end. As Mr. Christopher says, we're making good headway there, and as a function of that, in a certain number of cases you are going to find that there is simply not enough evidence; however, if there is another opportunity to come back, that may change.

Hopefully that helps.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

That is very helpful.

We're about at the end of our time, but, Mr. Zimmer, you may ask a really quick question.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

I would concur with my colleague Mr. Lobb in thanking all the veterans who are in the room for their service to Canada. I've had family who have served as well, and I have the utmost respect for all of you. Thank you.

I have a question in terms of this appeals process. It seems to be a frustration, and obviously it is for those who have served. We want to get to the bottom of making it an easier process. What has been done by our government that has reduced the red tape involved in that process to make it as easy as possible for our veterans to go through?

[Rick Christopher]

A number of things have been done internally around reducing red tape. We talked about the plain language initiative. We're going to be looking at all the documents that we send out to applicants. We've reduced the number. We've reduced documents on how to manage your lump sum award from 12 pages to two, for instance. We've done some outreach to veterans who've received decisions from us, both favourable and unfavourable, and asked them about the material they got from us—what they read, what they don't read, how they found it. Did they find the letters easy to understand? Were they difficult? Were the decisions clear? We made some changes based on that. A large number of people said they'd rather go to the web, so please don't send them any more pamphlets. That's one of the things.

The other thing we're doing to continue to reduce our turnaround times is examining the processes we use to make decisions and reducing the number of hand-offs that have to take place. We are making sure that the process is as streamlined as it possibly can be to get a correct decision out as quickly as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopher.

We jammed our time pretty hard, so I'm going to thank both our witnesses very much. I'm sure at some point down the road we will see you again.

We're going to break for a minute, and I'd ask the witnesses to please change fairly quickly, now that we have others here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

We're going to reconvene. As you know, we're pressed for time, so we're going to proceed fairly quickly, please.

Continuing along with our study on VRAB, we are very pleased to have with us the chair of the VRAB, John Larlee. It's good to see you again. We have also Dale Sharkey, who is the director general, and Kathleen Vent, who is the acting director of legal services.

Welcome. I think you know the routine. We ask you for an opening statement and then we go to questions from members.

Go ahead, Mr. Larlee, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members.

Thank you for inviting me today. I am joined by members of my management team: Dale Sharkey, the board's Director General, and Kathleen Vent, Acting Director of Legal Services.

We are here today to talk about the board and to bring you up to date on the improvements we have made since our most recent appearance, last March.

The three main areas of improvement since our last appearance in March are faster decision-making, clearer decisions, and the way we are listening to veterans.

First I would like tell you about the board. The board's primary role is to support veterans, members of the Canadian Forces, members of the RCMP, and their families in obtaining benefits for service-related disabilities. We do this by providing an independent avenue of appeal for disability benefit decisions made by Veterans Affairs Canada.

Our independence is crucial. It means that we are not bound by the department's decisions or policies. At board hearings, veterans have the opportunity to tell their story, bring forward new information, and be represented at no cost by lawyers from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates or by service officers from the Royal Canadian Legion.

The hearings are not adversarial. No one is arguing against the veteran. Board members take a fresh new look at the information and will award new or increased benefits to veterans if there is credible evidence that satisfies the legislation.

To come to the board, veterans need only be dissatisfied with their departmental decision. The reality is that many veterans are satisfied and never come to the board. Only 10% to 15% of the decisions made by the department each year are appealed to the board. Last year we issued a total of 4,900 decisions for veterans and other applicants. We are pleased that we can change a large number of decisions to favour veterans. For a small tribunal, this is a high-volume workload, especially since we deal with the most complex and challenging cases.

Veterans who come to the board have access to two levels of independent redress: a review hearing and, if they remain dissatisfied, an appeal hearing.

The review hearing is often a pivotal moment for veterans. It is their chance to finally appear before decision-makers and be heard. Our board members take considerable care to conduct the hearings informally, with compassion, and in the interest of giving the veteran the last word. Last year the board granted new or increased benefits to veterans in half of its review decisions.

If applicants are not satisfied with their review decision, they can appeal it. The appeal hearing is an entirely new proceeding, conducted by a different panel of board members. The legislation does not permit oral testimony at the appeal level. Rather, it is another opportunity for veterans, through their representative, to submit new information and arguments in support of their case. Last year the board granted new or increased benefits to veterans in one-third of its appeal decisions.

These success rates tell us that veterans and their families benefit from the opportunity to appeal their decisions to an independent tribunal, yet despite this generous system, not every case can succeed.

While we know that some veterans will disagree with our decisions, we are committed to dealing fairly and efficiently with their applications. This means getting their cases heard at the earliest opportunity, conducting full and fair hearings, issuing clear decisions, and treating them with respect and dignity.

I would now like to talk about three aspects of our program where we have made improvements in order to ensure that veterans and their families are well-served.

First, we communicate decisions to veterans more quickly. Thanks to new technologies and other improvements, the board processes requests for review about 20% more quickly than five years ago. We have reduced processing time by 50% in the case of appeals. We are also looking for other ways to set hearing dates more quickly, and that includes providing veterans with the option to have their hearing by videoconference. As I told you in March, the board is currently carrying out a project for restructuring the business processes in order to find ways to reduce red tape and make the process faster and easier for veterans.

A second area of improvement I want to talk about is our focus on issuing fair and well-reasoned decisions for veterans. This begins with the board's merit-based selection process, which ensures new members are qualified to hear and decide cases. The criteria include a preference for members with a military, medical, policing, or legal background, in recognition of the work we do and the people we serve. Our two newest members, appointed last year, are CF and RCMP veterans.

Our excellent training program for new members combines practical teaching and support from experienced staff. All members also receive ongoing and specialized training from medical, legal, military, and lay experts on a variety of topics. In fact, as part of our annual training, later this week we will be hearing from Rear-Admiral Andrew Smith, chief of military personnel, and other serving members about military culture and operations at CFB Greenwood.

We have also taken swift action to address recommendations from the Veterans Ombudsman and suggestions from our stakeholders. For example, we have established a team to improve the quality of decisions by ensuring they are well organized, clearly expressed, and written in plain language. We will implement these improvements by the end of the year.

Our third area of focus is in working to serve and honour veterans by listening to them and acting on their feedback. Veterans have told us they want greater access to our decisions. In May, we began publishing the board's most relevant and instructive decisions on our website. These noteworthy decisions help veterans and the public better understand our work and make applicants aware of decisions made in cases similar to their own. We are also committed to building and maintaining our communications and partnerships with our stakeholders.

In short, we are listening. We know there is more work to do. We are determined to make it happen, and as soon as possible.

Before I wrap things up, I would like to invite all the members of the committee to attend a review hearing at one of our locations, in one part or another of Canada. Two of your honourable colleagues, Mr. Stoffer and Mr. Casey, have already accepted that invitation. They have told us that it was a useful and rewarding experience.

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak today about the board's commitment and about serving our veterans, Canadian Forces and RCMP members, as well as their families.

Thank you.

I'm prepared for your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much, Mr. Larlee.

We will go to Mr. Stoffer for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank all of you very much for coming today.

Mr. Larlee, how long have you been on the board?

[John D. Larlee]

I have been on the board since 2009, Mr. Stoffer.

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

In all that time, how many files have gone back to the minister for reconsideration? I know there has been one, the famous Steve Dornan case, which was reconsidered back to the minister pursuant to section 85. Have there been any more since then, or any more before that one that you may be aware of?

[John D. Larlee]

I know we get a number of applications back to the minister under section 85, but I'd refer that to Ms. Sharkey to see if she has that information. If not, I can provide it to you.

[Dale Sharkey, Director General, Veterans Review and Appeal Board]

I have information going back to, I believe, 2009-10. At that time there were 154, and there were 171 in the following year. There were 143 in 2011-12.

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

How many were actioned back to the minister for reconsideration, similar to the Dornan case?

[Dale Sharkey]

All of these were referred back to the minister under section 85 for decision-making.

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

Okay.

How many VRAB decisions are on your website?

[Dale Sharkey]

I think there are approximately between 70 and 80.

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

Not all of them make the website, correct?