Veterans Affairs Committee on June 16th, 2016

[Anthony Saez]

No. It could be any range of issues, from the way the veteran presented his or her application form and how they filled it out to the fact that there might be an incident in their past that they're aware of but didn't think was important. Then, when their lawyer looks at it, they realize that, and say, “We think that if you presented this information back to the department, they would grant...”.

It depends on the particular circumstances of the case and the particular veteran and how they apply to the department. It's a wide range of things. It's not one thing so that you might be able to say to all the clients, make sure you do x. That won't solve it. It's different.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Is there any training that could be given to case managers to try to bring out this information prior to...?

[Anthony Saez]

I know that in recent months they have in fact been.... When they receive an application, they actually call the client when they see that, gee, they're pretty close to crossing that line. They call them to suss it out and to see if there's anything else that supports the claim. More recently, they have been doing that.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Good. I think that's a good sign, and hopefully we'll have some measurables on it and be able look at it at some point in the future.

On the claims that are counselled out, to me that looks like a fairly significant number. In talking to my colleague here, who has been in private practice, I understand that in private practice the number of those counselled out is actually fairly small. I think that number also will represent veterans who feel that they should have had services or benefits; they've gotten to this point. Are there any commonalities there? What would be some of the reasons why there wouldn't be a case to go to review?

[Anthony Saez]

That's a good question.

The distinction I can make between this happening in private practice and what's happening here is that, as I said before, when the department renders its decision on the first application, at the bottom of the decision they have that little note that says if you're not happy with the decision you have the opportunity to consult with a lawyer for free.

It's the fact that they're being given this opportunity to consult with a lawyer for free, this mutual third party, to confirm whether or not the department's decision was correct. Also, as I said, these clients—most of them who are counselled out—aren't coming into our office pounding their fist on the table because they're upset. They're coming because they've seen that note and they think they might as well try that. They take advantage of that offer, we provide them the advice, and ultimately it's their decision as to whether to proceed or not.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

You mentioned that you're surveying the VRAB cases handled by the bureau and the satisfaction rates there. Is there any survey being done of those who are counselled out?

[Anthony Saez]

I don't think so, simply because in the end, they were able to get what they wanted in the first place through this diverted process much more quickly, much more efficiently than had they gone through the whole redress system.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

Yes, but I would imagine some of those also didn't get the result they were expecting.

[Anthony Saez]

In that case, they come back to us, we go to the board, and then they get our survey.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

All right, fair enough, that's great.

I think I have about a minute left.

One of my other questions was whether they can still proceed, and the answer is yes to that.

Did we talk about the access to records? Are you able to get the records easily that you need?

[Anthony Saez]

Yes. It would be helpful if the DND records could arrive more quickly. As I said earlier, it's gotten better, much better than it was in the past. There's probably still a little bit of room for improvement.

[Alaina Lockhart, Liberal, Fundy Royal, NB]

All right, thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Neil Ellis]

Go ahead, Mr. Clarke.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Hello, Mr. Saez. I am very pleased to have you with us today.

A few months ago, I attended a Veterans' Review and Appeal Board hearing. I was impressed by the passion shown by the lawyer defending the veteran's case. Quite clearly, their heart is in the right place.

Your office was created in 1971. I would like to know how many lawyers you had on staff at that time.

[Anthony Saez]

I don't know because I wasn't there then, but I think there were a few more than there are now.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

That's interesting.

Does Veterans Affairs pay your lawyers' salaries?

[Anthony Saez]

The department pays their salaries.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

In general, do your lawyers stay with the organization for a long time or is there significant staff turnover?

[Anthony Saez]

They stay on for a long time.

People tend to stay quite a bit, and in fact, at the moment, we're experiencing a generational change. Shortly after World War II, the government paid for many veterans to go to law school, and many of those were hired in the late forties and early fifties, and they stayed until the 1970s and early 1980s, which is when we hired a whole bunch of new lawyers. Now those lawyers are all retiring at the same time.

One of the challenges we are facing right now is replacing the lawyers who are retiring, while continuing to provide our services.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

Of course, the new veterans' charter came into effect in 2006. Would you like to share any observations on the impact of the charter on the type of cases you handle? I would like to hear your observations please.

[Anthony Saez]

Well, let me say at first that it's all anecdotal because, at the bureau, we are simply concerned with disability awards and reviews. We don't do the other stuff that the department does.

From a veteran's perspective, I would imagine that the suite of benefits that are offered now are more widespread than under the old Pension Act. Now there's income replacement, disability benefits, and a whole suite of things that weren't available to them.

In the end, though, I think it comes down to your particular circumstances. If you are a 75-year-old veteran or even if you are a 50-year-old veteran, who because of illness doesn't expect to live long, you'd probably want the lump sum. You don't want the monthly pension that will probably last you a few months or a few years and that's it.

If on the other hand, you're a young veteran at the beginning of your career and you have an injury, then you're probably looking at a pension that might be paid out longer than the lump sum award. Or you might be in the middle and hope to be buying a house and need the lump sum for the mortgage. It all depends on the particular circumstances of the veteran.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Thank you.

Has the number of lawyers in your office increased since 2006?

[Anthony Saez]

That changes, and it depends, because there are a number of lawyers we keep on two- or three-year terms because we know there is a bubble coming through the system and we're going to need them, and then we won't need them later. Depending on the time and our needs, it fluctuates.

[Alupa Clarke, Conservative, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Has your office seen an increase in requests for your services since 2006?

[Anthony Saez]

That's a good question.

We did immediately before the Veterans Charter came into effect. Then we started to see a slight decline. The numbers were going down, not significantly but steadily. Curiously though, in the last 12 months, those numbers have started to come up again. We dropped to levels we hadn't been to before, and now we're back up above levels we had been to previously. There is an increase. I don't know if that's just because the department managed to push through many files last summer and now we're seeing the effect of that, or if it's going to be a long-term thing. We'll have to see.