Veterans Affairs Committee on Oct. 22nd, 2012

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

Is Canada unique in providing some type of system similar to yours, in that we provide free legal counsel to veterans to get a free second opinion on the benefits that are being extended to them?

[Anthony Saez]

Yes, as far as we know, we are. That's not to say there might not be something out there that we're not aware of, but as far as we are aware, yes. In fact, a number of years ago, we had colleagues from the Department of Veterans' Affairs in Australia visit us at the bureau to see what it is we do. They were interested in some kind of a similar process. From that, we know they came to us because the Americans don't have it, the British don't have it, and the New Zealanders don't have it.

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

And the Australians, presumably, still don't have it?

[Anthony Saez]

That's right.

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

That's rather remarkable. Just considering some of our allies, do the French have that?

[Anthony Saez]

Not that we're aware of, no. Most of our western allies do not have that.

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

Turning to your deck where you enumerate the number of claims, I notice that from 2009 to last year, there was a rather dramatic drop in the number of claims coming to you, from 8,700 to some 6,900. Can you explain that trend?

[Anthony Saez]

I'll give it a shot and Charles can add the detail if he would like.

In 2009, a major decision on hearing loss was made, affecting quite a large number of cases that had to be revisited. In cooperation with VRAB, we put in a process that allowed us to streamline a lot of these cases that were very similar. We had, I believe, an extra 800 cases—

[Charles Keliher]

Or more.

[Anthony Saez]

—or more. That's why in 2009–10 the number is higher. If those 800 or 1,000 cases were taken out, it would be more in line with the following years.

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

We've recently introduced the plain language initiative. A veteran will have their benefits reviewed and their claim reviewed, and if a claim is denied or accepted, that information is provided to the veteran in very plain, simple language. It spells out what type of medical information would still be required if the veteran wanted to proceed further.

Have you noticed any difference in your work in dealing with that?

[Anthony Saez]

I think Charles might see that more day to day.

[Charles Keliher]

It's a very recent initiative and—

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

Yes.

[Charles Keliher]

—we're at about a two-year differential between the time a claim is initiated with Veterans Affairs and it ends up on our desk.

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

Perhaps we'll have you back in two years to answer that question. Thank you, fair enough.

Mr. Ogilvy, in addition to your opening remarks, can you give us an idea why tribunals such as VRAB exist? Why not simply have an increased number of courts instead of tribunals?

[Dr. James Ogilvy]

That is very pertinent to the whole question of tribunals all over the place. The idea is to deliver justice in a way that is more accessible than the courts. The timelines are not as long. The decisions are made by people familiar with the territory in which the complaint comes forward.

Tribunals are typically responsible for dealing with one or a very small number of pieces of legislation. They are specialized and, as a matter of fact, the courts often refer to them as expert tribunals.

Is that as much as you wanted to hear?

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

That's fine.

[Dr. James Ogilvy]

I could go on for an hour.

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

Thank you.

You are here because you're an expert. Could you provide us with some insight into the administrative challenges that a board such as VRAB might face?

[Dr. James Ogilvy]

One point is, when you have experts in the field, it has to be dealt with in a very delicate way because the specific expertise and opinions have to be left at the door. Someone’s being an expert in a given area may mean that their natural reaction to certain evidence is to reject it because they know better.

The idea of the expertise is to establish common language and make it possible to communicate with the witnesses or with the appellants and make judgments on fact, that recognizes the exigencies of that particular field of endeavour. That can cause an administrative issue.

I mentioned training in my short piece, as well. Many of the people—even lawyers, in fact—but many others who come to tribunals in a decision-making role really are not accustomed to that kind of role. Training in how to manage the process can be very important. That's another administrative aspect of it.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Greg Kerr]

Thank you very much. That does put us over the time.

Mr. Casey, for five minutes, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here. It's a surprise to me that you're here, and it's probably a surprise to you.

The reason we're here and studying this is that back at the end of March the Veterans Ombudsman issued a pretty detailed and damning report as a result of the very high overturn rate of cases under judicial review coming out of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. He said that he had to “conclude that improvements to the board's decision-making are needed to restore the trust of those who turned to it for redress.”

My first question is for both of you. On a day-to-day basis, last week and next week, your employment includes making representations to the board. Is that right?

[Anthony Saez]

Yes, that's correct.