Veterans Affairs Committee on May 31st, 2016

[Thomas Jarmyn]

I think the reason is that they're succeeding on the review. What ends up happening is that individuals are successful at the review. The cases are fundamentally the same, and as entitlement is being granted earlier and earlier at each stage, we're finding that success rates at other stages seem to be dropping.

In 2014-15, I believe it was 44% and change at review. In 2015-16, it's 52% at review. What we saw, I think as the knock-on consequence of that, is that the success rate at appeal declined, I'm guessing, with respect to that.

I don't ask questions about favourability rates. I don't ask questions about panel's favourability rates, or individual members' favourability rates. I'm very leery about saying whether or not the board is successful, whether we grant or deny. It really is about the quality of the decisions from a board perspective.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

It seems, though, in regard to this shift in terms of success, that there's something going on at Veterans Affairs. Is there communication between VRAB and Veterans Affairs to say perhaps there needs to be a shift in terms of considerations or there is a problem if indeed we're finding these initial cases weren't getting the kind of consideration they should have? Do you comment back and forth? Do you exchange information on best practices?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

Yes, we do. We report individual decisions back.

We, actually, in a global sense as well, when we explain.... When my panellists fill out whether this is based on new medical evidence, and it could have been granted at an earlier stage, that information is also passed back to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A large part of the fluctuation I think is being driven by the fact that the department's first application grant rates have been going up dramatically. They're at 85% now. I don't know that they'll go up much further, but that is where they seem to be now.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I wanted to come back to the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. You said that they're independent counsel, but are they lawyers within Veterans Affairs Canada or are they contracted by Veterans Affairs Canada?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

They're all employees of the Government of Canada. I'll get the particular section and report back to the committee, but there is a particular section in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act that creates the office of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates as an independent entity that is fully protected in terms of solicitor-client privilege. They're independent actors, and the deputy has no right of interference in the operations of their business. They are similar to special advocates who are used in the immigration context, but they are employees of the Government of Canada.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Are you satisfied that they are indeed absolutely independent? Are there any concerns about the fact that they're government employees and the objectivity of their approach to various cases?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

I have no concerns about that at all. I've only seen them as zealous advocates in pursuit of their clients' interests.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I want to go back to a previous question and, again, to where 65% of the decisions of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board modify initial rulings made by VAC.

I wonder how this figure compares with similar organizations, say in Great Britain, the United States, or allied countries. Have you ever actually looked at comparators in regard to our allies?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

We have not done that. This committee may be better placed to do that. I don't have the resources to do those kinds of things.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Would it be a useful thing to do?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

It may well be for the committee. I've got to balance resources, and I don't have the resources to carry out those kinds of studies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Ms. Romanado.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Please forgive my directness. I'm looking at the main estimates for 2016-17. VRAB has estimated budgetary expenditures of $10.92 million.

Had 50% of your cases been approved from the get-go at VAC, is it fair to say that this $10.92 million—close to $11 million—operating budget would not be necessary? That's my first question.

[Thomas Jarmyn]

I don't think so. You're always going to need an appeal body that is going to require a core of expertise. It's going to require the capacity to hold hearings across the country.

If you were to eliminate VRAB, all these people would be going to Federal Court with all of the problems and time limitations that are associated with that.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Actually, if they had been approved from the get-go, as they should have been, they wouldn't actually have required to, but let me continue.

Can you give me a sense of the amount of money that is saved by the department by delaying benefits for eight to 12 months? It's not retroactive, right?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

They're being paid a lump sum, so when they're paid the lump sum they get the lump sum regardless. The timing of a payment of lump sum has no impact on savings.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'm not referring to lump sum payments. What I'm talking about is that veterans present themselves, and it takes around eight months to get a decision. If a decision is not favourable, then it takes another 16 weeks to go through the VRAB process. During that time they have not received benefits. If it is overturned and it's effective that date, we've saved eight to 12 months of paying this person. How much on an annual basis is the government saving by delaying benefits?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

The only benefits I'm aware of that VRAB is involved with are lump sum payments. There are Pension Act claims, but the vast majority of those...8% of those claims are RCMP claims under the Pension Act, in which retroactive payments are possibly made. We have the jurisdiction of giving retroactive payments back to the date of application, or three years prior to the date of decision, and have the opportunity to give even further retroactivity when we find that is merited.

So retroactivity is covered in Pension Act cases, and the only benefits VRAB is involved in are lump sum awards.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

In terms of performance bonuses, you mentioned that they're based on meeting targets and using technology. Are there any stretch bonuses for improving targets—i.e., turnaround times?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

Implicit in those for performance, we set targets with respect to turnaround times. Some of the executives are subject to those, or have those provisions—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

But are there any stretch targets with regard to, say, being able to turn around your casework or whatever in 10 weeks versus 16 weeks? This is my question.

[Thomas Jarmyn]

I'm not aware of any of those terms embedded in the performance agreements. Before I would agree to such a term in a performance agreement, I would have to see whether or not there was a viable path to actually doing that. If they're not meeting the performance pay, they actually then don't get—

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

From what I'm hearing, there is absolutely no incentive anywhere to improve turnaround times. That's my point. I'll ask you the flip side: is the behaviour rewarded for taking the maximum amount of time?

[Thomas Jarmyn]

No, it is not. Our turnaround times have improved on a year-over-year basis. The integrity of the organization is driven by that commitment. I ask every day if we are doing better today than we did yesterday, and how we can do better tomorrow.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Has your department ever undergone an audit by an external panel to have a workflow analysis done to see where times and/or efficiencies can be improved? We talked a little bit about using courier service rather than electronic transmission and so on. I'm just curious to know if that has ever been undertaken.