Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 15th, 2012

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

In terms of VRAB, you have already mentioned a number of improvements that can be made. You talked a lot about the composition, the fact that there are not enough veterans and that perhaps there are not enough board members with medical knowledge. I understand that you wanted to focus on how to improve VRAB. There are in fact a whole lot of problems in that respect.

You briefly talked about the benefit of the doubt given to veterans. It seems that the board is quite strict about giving the benefit of the doubt to a veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder, when symptoms appear a few years later.

In terms of the board's decisions, do you think that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to veterans?

[Ray Kokkonen]

I think all of the commentary here and also in the past has been that the benefit of the doubt is being applied incorrectly. It's much too strict and gives no benefit of the doubt to the veteran in very many cases. The former veterans ombudsman made a very big issue of this, did a lot of research into it, and clearly seemed to prove that it was not being done correctly at VRAB.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Yes, you said that the ombudsman's third recommendation had to do with the benefit of the doubt. I read in the government's implementation plan that the intent was to strengthen the benefit of the doubt. The department said that it would set up a multidisciplinary team to improve the formula used to make decisions and to provide reasons that are easy to understand.

In my mind, that does not really deal with the benefit of the doubt. Are you getting the same impression? Do you feel that the department and the board have taken all the necessary measures to ensure that the benefit of the doubt is given to a greater extent?

[Andrea Siew]

As I mentioned in my presentation, the application of the benefit of the doubt is probably the most misunderstood part of the process. It's a concept, and it now has a legal interpretation from the Federal Court, and veterans don't understand it. For advocates and lawyers, it's still very difficult to understand, and it needs to be simplified.

What does “benefit of the doubt” mean? Veterans will tell me that it means the benefit should go to them. They were injured during their service, and therefore they're entitled to benefits. It's from one end of the spectrum to the other. If there's one thing that needs to be done, it is to make how that benefit of the doubt clause is to be applied very clear. What does it mean? It's very complicated.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Could recommendations be made to VRAB to improve how the principle of the benefit of the doubt is applied?

You talked about changing the composition of the board members, to include people with more military or medical experience. Is there something else that could be suggested?

[Andrea Siew]

I look at three things.

One is the evidence requirements, which are directly linked to the benefit of the doubt. The interpretation of all of the evidence by the board members influences what benefit of the doubt is, but you need to look at all three.

You need to look at the composition of the board members. You need to look at the “benefit of the doubt” clause and how that's being interpreted, and you need to make that very clear to veterans and to the board and to Veterans Affairs, because they also use it. As well, you need to look at the evidence requirements.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

It seems that veterans file very few complaints with the board on a yearly basis. You said that veterans do not have a good perception of the board. I would like to get an idea of why there are not more complaints filed with the board. I am told that some are afraid that their file would be affected.

Veterans' confidence in the board needs to be restored. They have to be confident that the board has integrity. Could you expand on that?

[Andrea Siew]

I think there might be a lot of misinformation out there about the board. The evidence requirements are so stringent, and I mentioned it. You have to provide all of the evidence and you have to have the specialists' reports to confirm that you have that injury. You have to have the pulmonary function test.

I ask for statements from veterans. Was there a board of inquiry? Where is the CF-98, the report of injuries? Do you have your unit employment record? There's a lot of evidence required. The veteran just says, “But I was injured.” Yes, but we need to do the evidence. There's a thought process that says, “That's a lot of evidence that's required; why do I need all that? I'm a veteran; the government, the country, should be looking after me.”

That's where that perception comes from. We need to get past that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much. We're quite past time on that one, so we'll go to Mr. Harris for five minutes, please.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Folks, I really want to thank you for coming today, and thank you for the job that you do, because standing up for our vets in any way you can, and particularly in your position, is so important. It's so important that they receive absolutely the best care and all of the help we can give them.

I'm not going to imagine that this is a new problem we're having with Veterans Affairs. I would suspect it's been going on for a very long time. Like any organization around government, when deficiencies or needed improvements are brought to their attention, the government should—and does, hopefully—respond in a positive fashion. I think that's the whole idea behind the current transformation process that all of Veterans Affairs is going through. The obligation you folks have, and you do it well, is to bring the negatives that you see within the system to the attention of government so they can try to fix it. Thank you for doing that.

Mr. Gollner, I note in your presentation that you did appropriately point out, just to paraphrase, that the negatives get all the attention and the good things never make the press, never make the media. Quite often they never get to committee hearings like this. Along with the negative comments, there's likely a good amount of good news that comes out as a result of this government, and governments before us, trying to fix Veterans Affairs in whatever way they can.

Would you like to comment on that?

[BGen Joseph Gollner]

Mr. Chair and ladies and gentlemen, within CPVA we work very diligently at trying to recognize nationally and locally the good job that the vast majority at Veterans Affairs and the VRAB actually do. You always hear about the 10,000 widows, if you will, who get service, but it's the one who doesn't get the service who is in the media.

To that end, two years ago CPVA initiated a national awards system for members of Veterans Affairs. Last year the award went to Bridget Preston, the director of Vancouver Island's Veterans Affairs office, and her staff. She, with a small staff, provides service to 14,000 clients and does a Herculean job. Unanimously, we had an awards ceremony. The Lieutenant Governor of the province presented her the award, and Ray and I were there.

This year we have a similar award that's about to take place next month, in Moncton, but it's not to be announced just yet. We also do it locally by having our chapters across the country identify good people who are helping veterans in a variety of ways.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Knowing that this committee was coming, during my week off I made a stop at three Legions in British Columbia. I wanted to test the waters. I talked to a total of 18 vets. I just went around to introduce myself as a member of the veterans affairs committee.

Of those 18 vets—and this is not a concocted good-news story; this is what happened—11 said they have had little or no contact, in any area, with Veterans Affairs because everything was going fine. Their pension cheques were coming and their health issues were not serious. There were five who had some favourable comments about how Veterans Affairs has helped them with health issues that had come on later in their lives. As well, one had just completed an appeals process and had won the appeal. Then there was one who was still involved in the appeal. He didn't know the outcome, but he didn't think it was going to be very good.

Appropriately, I guess, the one chap who has had problems with the appeal board was very outspoken in his opinions, and that was to be expected. However, there's always some good when you talk to people.

Mr. Kokkonen, I want to get back to you for a minute.

You are talking about the energy that you saw—

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Mr. Harris, excuse me. You have to ask a very brief question, because we're—

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Well, Mr. Kokkonen said that he saw an energy within VRAB and that maybe gave him a bit of encouragement.

[Ray Kokkonen]

If I could add something, Mr. Chair, one of the big factors here is social media. That one complainer you're talking about will get on Facebook, Twitter, email, and that's the message that goes out.

The information we've presented comes.... We had no positive comments, so we don't know how many are out there. We're not presenting our findings as balanced evidence; we asked, and this is what we got back.

[Dick Harris, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much.

We'll conclude with Mr. Lobb. You have five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Andrea, of the 5,000 or so appeals that VRAB deals with every year, how many occur because of a missing report or a missing diagnosis from a specialist?

Is it half, three-quarters, 10%? Does anybody know?

[Andrea Siew]

No. The VRAB doesn't keep statistics on that type of data.

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

Okay. Do you think that might be a suggestion that would be worthwhile as a recommendation from this study, to gather data on how to maybe better remedy the problem or perceived problem?

[Andrea Siew]

Yes, to have that type of data, as well as in the decision letters....

If it's turned down at a particular level, why is it turned down, and what information is missing? I know the department and VRAB are working on both of those items.

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

That would seem reasonable.

Let's say the case is rejected because they need to get an MRI on a shoulder or a knee to assess the level of damage. What is the timeframe for a veteran, from the day they get the rejection letter to the day they can visit the local base to have it examined by a military specialist?

[Andrea Siew]

Each case is individual. It depends on what community they're in and whether they have access to an MRI. Here in Ottawa it takes eight months to get an MRI.

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

In a case in which there could be undue financial hardship—maybe the spouse has lost a job recently and perhaps the veteran does not have a large stream of income coming in—is there a mechanism for them to be moved up on the priority list to at least have their case revisited, or be able to see a doctor more readily than, say, in the eight months for an MRI here in Ottawa?

[Andrea Siew]

There are a couple of things. I, with the Legion, have a big issue about the delays, because you have a finite number of opportunities to appeal or redress a decision, and if you use those up, you cannot go back to the board. We always tell the veteran to make sure we have the best possible evidence. We don't take a case before the board without all of the available evidence. We will work with the veteran to get the MRI and we'll look at options.

Both the Bureau of Pensions Advocates and the Legion provide compensation. They will pay for medical opinions, doctors' reports, and test results to help them out.