Evidence of meeting #20 for Veterans Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was client.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Anthony Saez  Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

I would like to call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on February 25, the committee is resuming its study on service delivery. The second hour of our meeting will be in camera and is dedicated to future committee business.

First, by video conference from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, we'll start off with our witness from the Department of Veterans Affairs, Anthony Saez, executive director and chief pensions advocate at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.

Good morning, Anthony. We'll give you up to 10 minutes to make an opening statement. Then we will directly proceed to questions and answers.

The floor is yours. Thank you.

11:05 a.m.

Anthony Saez Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Good afternoon, and good morning to you there.

First of all, thank you for inviting me to do this by video conference. It's a technology that we're using more and more, and it makes us more efficient and certainly more cost effective.

By way of opening, I'd like to say that the Bureau of Pensions Advocates was formed in 1971, following the tabling in Parliament of the Woods committee report. This committee recommended the formation of an independent body of lawyers, also called advocates, who would work on behalf of clients to ensure that no stone would be left unturned in the consideration of applications for disability benefits.

The bureau's mandate is to offer free legal advice, consultations and representation on cases brought before the Veterans' Review and Appeal Board. This service is for individuals who are not satisfied with a decision made by the department regarding their disability benefits claim.

The Woods committee was clear in its understanding of the role of BPA advocates, stating:

The role of the advocate is unique in that his responsibility is to assist the applicant for pension, and the only duty he owes to his employer (the Crown) is to do his utmost to assist this applicant. An applicant for pension has the right to expect from the advocate, without charge, the same service as an applicant would demand of his solicitor in civil legislation.

Therefore, although administratively the bureau reports to the deputy minister of Veterans Affairs Canada, by legislation it has a solicitor/client relationship with clients. A BPA lawyer works for the client and takes instruction from the client and no one other than the client.

The bureau is headed up by an executive director and chief pensions advocate, who is supported by two directors, the director of legal operations and the director of strategic planning and management support. The four district directors, who manage the 14 BPA offices across Canada, report to the director of legal operations, as do the pensions advocates with the appeal unit in Charlottetown. The BPA has about 100 employees, 30 of whom are lawyers.

Clients may choose to be represented by a veterans organization, such as the Royal Canadian Legion, or by a private lawyer, or they may represent themselves. The reality, however, is that over 95% of all cases presented before VRAB, and probably closer to 99%, are handled by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.

There are five possible steps open to clients in the disability redress process.

First, they may be “counselled out”. This is where the advocate, who normally has vast experience in the medical-legal field, considers the merits of the case and advises the client against proceeding, keeping in mind that the client may decide to proceed nevertheless with advocate representation, regardless of the advice received.

Second, if the case was turned down by the department at first application due to information that was missing and easily obtained after the fact, this information may be gathered and the case may be returned to the departmental adjudicators for a departmental review, which is handled quickly and often results in a positive outcome for the client.

Third, where the advocate and the client feel there is merit in proceeding to a review hearing before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, client and advocate will work together to obtain the necessary information to substantiate the claim and prepare the case. This hearing is an opportunity for the client to appear in person before the board members, with transportation and accommodation paid for by VAC regardless of the place of residence of the client. The review hearing is the client's opportunity to give oral testimony in person, provide additional evidence in support of the claim, and have witnesses attend as necessary, with the additional benefit of legal representation.

Fourth, sometime after the review hearing, the client will receive the decision of the board. If the decision is unfavourable or partially unfavourable, there may be an opportunity to proceed to an appeal hearing before VRAB, which would be held before a different panel of board members. The appeal decision is final and binding.

Finally, in circumstances where new and compelling evidence comes to light after the appeal hearing, or where there may have been an error of fact or law, there is a limited option open to the client, with approval from VRAB, to make application for reconsideration.

In terms of workload, BPA completes about 6,000 claims a year, and counsels out about 4,500 claims, for a total workload of about 10,000 files a year.

At VRAB review, BPA is successful about 52% of the time, and at VRAB appeal, about 39% of the time. Understanding that the bureau represents almost everyone who is dissatisfied with their initial decision, this indicates that very few applicants are turned down, either at first application or following redress. It is of note as well that Canada is the only country in the world that allows for an independent review of disability decisions by lawyers, and for free representation by lawyers before an administrative tribunal.

Here are some additional interesting facts about BPA’s workload. New cases arrive every day, while other cases are completed on a day-to-day basis as well in the bureau. We have a rolling inventory of cases flowing in and out at the same time. An advocate has about 300-350 cases on the desk at any given time, some arriving, some awaiting new evidence, some being worked up for hearing, and some being presented at a hearing. Advocates are expected to complete about 195 cases per year.

There are three hallmarks to the bureau’s approach to service. First is personalized service. Clients who phone generally reach an employee; drop-in clients are welcome; and the advocate-client relationship is nurtured through conversation—either over the phone or in person—throughout the redress process.

Second is the advocates without borders business model. Some years ago, it became clear that the BPA clients served from offices with the largest backlog—those situated close to key Canadian Armed Forces bases—were waiting far longer to have their cases dealt with than those served by bureau offices in other locations with a lower volume of work. Over a period of several years, BPA has standardized its work processes across the country, allowing for the movement of client cases from busy sites to sites with a lesser workload, in order to ensure an equitable distribution of work nationally, leading to fair and equitable client service.

Third is flexible advocacy. Prior to the borderless model I just spoke of, review lawyers and their legal assistants in decentralized locations across Canada worked on review cases, while appeal lawyer/assistant teams in Charlottetown worked exclusively on appeals. Now, more and more often, BPA employees are becoming experienced at working up cases at either level of redress—review or appeal—and can be deployed to where there is most need. This nimble workforce allows for more timely service.

After each hearing, clients are asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire and return it in a self-addressed envelope to headquarters for recording purposes. The rate of return for the questionnaires is statistically valid. The questionnaire covers all aspects of the appeal process, including staff courtesy, the suitability of communications and the quality of representation.

I would now like to talk about some of the results for 2015-2016.

Ninety-eight per cent of clients were satisfied or very satisfied with the courtesy of bureau employees; 94% were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of advice provided by their advocate; and overall, 93% of respondents were satisfied or very satisfied with the service they received from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. I am ready to take your questions.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

Thank you for your great presentation.

We'll start with our first round of questioning for six minutes, beginning with Ms. Wagantall.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Good morning and thank you very much for being here. I appreciate the role that you play, and how important it is for veterans to have this avenue of opportunity when they are turned down initially.

I have a question. First of all, when you were discussing—it's point number three in the handout we have from you—when the advocate and client feel there is merit in proceeding to a review hearing, what I'm hearing is that both the advocate and the client have to be in agreement to move forward to an appeal hearing. Is that what that's saying?

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

No, not quite. What we do is we work up a case with the client that the client is happy with. The decision on whether or not to proceed rests solely with the client.

What will happen is this. When the department renders its decision on the first application, at the bottom of the letter explaining the reasons why you may not have been granted a pension or disability, it says that you have the right to appeal this decision to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board and you have the right to consult a lawyer in doing so. Very often what happens is that people will call not because they're pounding-on-the-table upset that they didn't get what they were hoping to get, but because they're seeing this as a free second opinion from a lawyer who works for them.

When we receive the file, we review the file and the medical reports and we review the department's decision. Then we get together with the client and we explain our view. We tell them either that it's a great case to go forward with or that we think the department got it right, and there's not much to appeal. At that point, the client then makes a decision. They'll either take our advice and not bother, or they'll say, “You know what? I don't care. I want you to proceed.” And we will proceed.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

That's the “claims counselled out” portion.

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

That's right. Those are the claims counselled out. Basically, it's giving the client a second opinion, and when they're happy with that opinion, if it happens to be not to proceed and they accept that, then it's counted as counselled out.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Okay. Thank you.

Point four, which may apply in the same way, states, “...sometime after the review hearing the client will receive the decision of the board. If the decision is unfavourable or partially unfavourable, there may be an opportunity to proceed to an appeal hearing....”

Again, “there may be”; what determines whether or not it does go forward?

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

It depends on the particulars of each case, of course. Let's say the client receives a decision that is partially favourable. The board has agreed at review that, yes, you should be getting this pension, and we think it should be at x%. The client may decide they're not happy with that x%. They think it should be y%. We will look at that, and based on our years of experience, we will decide whether to advise them that, yes, they do have a strong case and let's go ahead, or that, no, that percentage is probably as much as they're going to get.

Again, the client makes the decision, after that discussion, on whether to proceed or not.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Thank you.

This little chart here shows the claims completed and the claims counselled out. For the ones counselled out, then, the decision has been made that there won't be an appeal hearing?

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

Correct—except that's not a permanent decision. If next week, next month, next year, or 10 years from now the veteran decides that some information has suddenly come to them that they either weren't aware of at the time of their application or they'd just plain forgotten about, they can certainly come back to us. We can then pick it up from there and go ahead.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

I'm just thinking; in our discussions we've been talking about the fact that a lot of proof of injury has been the responsibility of the armed forces individual, and looking at changing some of the dynamics of that. If you're a parachuter, clearly it would be your knees over time, and that type of thing.

Could that impact that in the future, then, if those rules are changed?

11:15 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

The percentages of satisfaction that come back in your poll following your services look very, very good. I'm just wondering if you have clarification of “98% were satisfied”. This is of individuals who actually did return your survey. Do you know the percentage of people actually responding?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

Yes. We have about 60% at review, and about 35% or 40% at appeal.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Okay.

Are you aware of how many are people who were happy and their claims were completed versus those who were counselled out?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Well, with those who are responding, is there a way to know with that survey if the individuals were satisfied and received the response they wanted or if the individuals did not get to have their claim?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

Essentially, what happens is that, after review or appeal hearings take place, we then present clients with the survey and they fill it out at that point. At that point they're simply rating the advocate in terms of the relationship they had with their personal advocate. They're not rating on whether or not they got what they were looking for from the board.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Cathay Wagantall Conservative Yorkton—Melville, SK

Okay, that's clarifies it. Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Neil Ellis

Go ahead, Mr. Fraser.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

Thank you very much for your presentation and for helping us understand the bureau.

The question I have relates to the lawyers themselves. I understand there are 30 lawyers who work for the bureau. Is that right?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

That's correct.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS

So those 30 are the ones who actually are the advocates who go before the tribunal?

11:20 a.m.

Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs

Anthony Saez

That is correct.