Veterans Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

I now call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the 59th meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, March 6, 2023, the committee is commencing its study of the backlog at the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

I'd like to welcome our colleague MP Eric Melillo, who replaces Mr. Fraser Tolmie.

Members and witnesses, I would like to remind you that although this room is equipped with a powerful audio system, feedback events can occur. These can be extremely harmful for interpreters and cause serious injuries.

The most common cause of sound feedback is an earpiece worn too close to a microphone. We therefore ask all participants to exercise a high degree of caution when handling the earpieces, especially when your microphone or your neighbour's microphone is turned on.

In order to prevent incidents and to safeguard the hearing health of our interpreters, I invite participants and witnesses to ensure they speak into the microphone into which their headset is plugged and to avoid manipulating the earbuds by placing them on the table away from the microphone when they are not in use.

A reminder that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

Given the time, I would ask for the unanimous consent of the committee to continue the meeting until 6:00 p.m. or 6:15 p.m., provided that our witnesses can stay until then. Is there unanimous consent to extend the meeting until 6:15 p.m.? I see that there is, and I thank you.

Colleagues, let's start.

Let me welcome our witnesses for today.

From the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have Steven Woodman, acting senior director, legal operations, Bureau of Pensions Advocates. From the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, we have Christopher J. McNeil, chair, and Jacques A. Bouchard, deputy chair.

Gentlemen, we will turn the floor over to you for your opening remarks. You have five minutes to address the committee members.

[Christopher McNeil, Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board]

Thanks for the invitation to again appear before you.

Appearing with me today, as usual, is my colleague the deputy chair, retired Lieutenant-Colonel Jacques Bouchard.

Jacques and I come to our work from uniform service. What motivates us daily in our work is having served with those who have suffered. We are very proud of the work we do and we're very proud of both the members and staff in P.E.I. who serve veterans every day.

As you know, the role of the board is essentially to provide veterans an opportunity to appeal disability claims where they are dissatisfied with the VAC decision. Thus, the caseload of the board is directly related to the workload of VAC.

Generally, the board is asked to review about 10% of VAC decisions. That goes up and down depending on the year. If VAC has a backlog, that backlog will eventually flow downstream to the board at some point. As a result of the significant increase in VAC processing decisions in the last few years, the board has seen approximately a 30% increase in the number of applications coming to the board.

The increased workload in the past few years has challenged our capacity to provide veterans with timely hearings. In 2018-19, the board had essentially 1,500 pending cases. Now, in 2022-23, we have 6,100 pending cases. This is in spite of the fact that over the same time period we have almost tripled the number of hearings that we have had. In 2018-19, we heard about 2,000 cases a year. Last year, we heard 5,200. This year, we will hear probably 6,000 cases.

The result of that is that veterans are waiting longer for their decisions. They are waiting up to almost a year—about 400 days.

We are pleased that the minister has supported the board's request for additional funding to address this growing backlog. As a result, in budget 2022 the board received two years of temporary funding in the amount of $6.2 million. While that may not seem like much, you have to recognize that we operate on a $11-million operating budget, so it is a significant investment in our service. In addition, the Government of Canada has committed to providing the board with additional funding that will support a long-term strategy to reduce the wait times.

With these resources, we've hired additional staff and we are in the process of hiring additional members to conduct more hearings. We believe this will provide a significant opportunity to reduce that backlog. However, we believe that in the absence of significant procedural changes, additional resources alone will not solve the backlog problem.

In this regard, I would ask deputy chair Jacques Bouchard to briefly outline the steps we have taken to increase access to hearings for veterans and to reduce the administrative burden.

[Jacques Bouchard, Deputy Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board]

Thanks, Chris.

Mr. Chair, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

As indicated by Mr. McNeil, we want to take a moment to tell you about a few of the initiatives we have implemented to improve access for veterans.

First, we have expanded the board's simplified hearing model, which has allowed us to increase the volume of cases that can be heard, and support timelier decisions. Most importantly it reduces the burden on veterans and their families to make their claim.

In partnership with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, we participated in the VETeam initiative with a simplified process, primarily for hearing loss and tinnitus cases. This process allowed the board to hear and issue approximately 2,500 decisions over the past two years, with 1,000 of these in a four-month window.

We are currently piloting an early resolution model, also with the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, for cases where the issue in dispute is narrow. The object is to deal with these files early and divert them from the formal appeal hearing process. In cooperation with the bureau, we believe this process has significant opportunity to address the backlog and reduce the burden on veterans and their families.

Finally, we continue to work every day to put the board in a position where it has the capacity to meet the current and ongoing needs of Canada's veterans.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will now give the floor to my colleague Steven Woodman from the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.

[Steven Woodman, Acting Senior Director, Legal Operations, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Good afternoon and thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members, for inviting me to appear before you today.

I am Steven Woodman, the acting senior director of legal operations at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. It is my pleasure to be here to speak about the bureau. The bureau has existed for more than 90 years in one form or another and is the only service of its kind in the world.

The mandate for BPA is set out in the Department of Veterans Affairs Act, which creates a free legal service for veterans. That mandate includes assisting applicants and pensioners in the preparation of reviews or appeals under the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act and arranging for representation at those hearings by our lawyers.

The act stipulates that the relationship between the bureau and the person requesting assistance is that of a solicitor and client, which means that the exchange of information with our clients is confidential.

The Bureau of Pensions Advocates calculates intake to be approximately 20% of the department's output. This means that as the backlog is reduced and more decisions are made at Veterans Affairs Canada, the work at BPA and then the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, VRAB, increases.

Last year, in fiscal 2022-23, our intake at BPA was 16,818 files. The average over the previous five years was 13,303. With the exception of the first year of the pandemic, our intake has risen annually. With this increasing intake, we are working closely with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to implement strategies that are resulting in greater responsiveness to veterans' claims.

As you heard from Mr. Bouchard, these initiatives include working with VRAB to create a simplified settlement process on some files and the creation of what we called the VET, veterans excellence teams, which consisted of junior lawyers working on less complex matters to help resolve those matters outside of our usual process and creating an early resolution process.

About a third of the requests for assistance the Bureau of Pensions Advocates receives will require a hearing before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. At the end of the day, the bureau represents veterans in over 95% of the cases heard by the board.

In addition to representing veterans before the board, the bureau submits 2,000 to 3,000 files each year to Veterans Affairs Canada for departmental review. An application for ministerial review is essentially a request to the department to review its own decision in light of new evidence or a clarification of the evidence that was already available at the time of the initial decision.

In recent years, the department has received additional funding to temporarily increase its capacity. This funding has allowed the bureau to address its own backlog. In budget 2023, the government announced new funding to help the bureau continue to reduce its backlog and maintain services for veterans. This is obviously invaluable assistance, but we continue to work on a long-term solution to these challenges.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much for your opening remarks.

We will now have two rounds of questions.

I'm pleased to invite Blake Richards, first vice-chair of the committee, to take the floor for six minutes.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you.

Thank you to all of you for being here today and for your testimony, as well.

I'll start with you, Mr. Woodman.

With the Bureau of Pensions Advocates, what do you do to seek feedback from veterans? What do you do to seek feedback as to whether they're happy with the work that you do on their behalf, or if there are ways that you can improve?

[Steven Woodman]

We do exit interviews after all hearings. We are pleased to tell you that we have probably in excess of 90% approval from the veterans we represent. That's been the case from practically the very beginning of the bureau.

Of course, we have face-to-face contact with veterans on a daily basis, telephone contact. We're outward facing to veterans. That is our work. That is our business, so we hear from them all of the time, and we really do make an effort both to listen and to bring those concerns to VAC and to address them with our clients.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you. I appreciate that response.

Looking through VAC's departmental plan for the coming year, I noticed the Bureau of Pensions Advocates is mentioned in it twice.

One of those instances indicates one of the plans the department has. The report says, “explorations will occur to see if additional technologies, like artificial intelligence, could increase efficiencies.” That's in relation to your work at the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.

Can you tell me what that means, exactly? What are the intentions for using artificial intelligence in your work?

[Steven Woodman]

I'm afraid I am not aware of what the intentions are for using artificial intelligence for our work.

Clearly, there is the issue of first-level decisions, which have to be sent out with a certain amount of efficiency. However, in our work itself, I can't see that there would be any necessary, immediate application for artificial intelligence.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes. It certainly concerned me to see that. When I think of veterans' cases, they're often very complex and nuanced. I think they require a lot of human understanding and empathy. It scares me to think there is some idea that an algorithm or a robot might be able to be part of that work. It scares the heck out of me, frankly. It's way too impersonal for what we need to be doing to serve our veterans.

I would ask if you could go back and see what you can find out about what that, in fact, means and provide some information to the committee on that. It certainly is concerning to me. I appreciate that you're not aware of what the intentions are, but if you could see what you can find out and get back to the committee on what those intentions are, it would sure be good to know.

I'll leave that there for a second.

I'll turn to Mr. McNeil or whoever would like to answer on behalf of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.

I got a letter recently from a veteran. I'm going to quote from that letter, because it had an interesting observation. He said, “It would seem that VAC is systematically denying claims and forcing people to go through the appeals processes, and I would like to know why. I think all veterans deserve to know why. VAC is not supposed to be run like an insurance company, and it's supposed to always give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran.” He goes on to say, “I can say with certainty that people are routinely being denied and forced to go through the appeals process who match the criteria.”

Does that sound like something you've heard from veterans yourself? Do you think there's any accuracy to the comments this veteran shared with me?

[Christopher McNeil]

Certainly, we hear frustrations from veterans, but I can only point to.... We do 10% or less of VAC decisions. The assumption is there's a larger number of people who are either satisfied with that decision or who pursue on to.... We do 10%, and we see our decisions fall into a couple of categories. One is just because of human error. It's a people business with people making decisions. The second one is due to the changing of medical consensus. The third one is they have a lawyer and now they have evidence. They needed new evidence. That's generally the nature of the work we see.

We see veterans for the first time, and the ones we see obviously are frustrated. I can only tell you the numbers. We do 10%, and that's on the high end. In some years, we do less.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay.

What would you say are some of the most egregious errors or decisions you've seen and had to overturn in recent memory? Could you share with us a couple of examples without giving out personal information?

[Christopher McNeil]

I can't say that I see egregious.... We see mistakes. Sometimes they're obvious mistakes. Sometimes people just miss it—the criteria for this or that. I can't speak personally, and I don't think Jacques could either, to something like seeing some concerted effort. I see mistakes. Mostly, it is lack of evidence at that level.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Okay.

What is your sense of the general attitude veterans have towards VAC when you're hearing from them at your hearings? What would the general feeling be towards VAC among the veterans you're hearing from?

[Christopher McNeil]

As I said before, I don't think the veterans who come before us distinguish. As I've told my staff, they don't say, “VAC did a very bad job. VRAC did a great job. The BPA did a great job.” They are upset with the RCMP. They are upset with the military. They are upset with VAC. They are upset with us. They are upset at the system. They see that the system let them down.

Yes, we are one part and we have a different job, but the system is only as good as its weakest link. In my experience, they're just upset with the system. They don't say, “Yes, VAC....” Obviously, when they're in front of us, VAC might be their target, but they're equally upset with CAF.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I guess I'm being told that my time is up for now. Maybe I can come back later and we can explore a little further what we can do to improve the system.

[The Chair, Liberal, Emmanuel Dubourg]

Thank you very much.

Let's turn to Mr. Sean Casey for six minutes, please.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We have spent a fair bit of time in this committee with officials from Veterans Affairs in front of us because of the backlog in processing disability claims. I understand you to say that some of those make it to you, but not all of them.

They've been able to provide us with pretty good data on the composition of those claims, i.e., the average wait time for a francophone versus an anglophone or for a woman versus a man. Can you do that?

[Christopher McNeil]

There's not a huge distinction between genders. Right now, there's about a two-week delay for women, and I can't tell you why. They come in the same and they're processed the same, so I can't explain that to you. It may be the nature of the cases. I don't know.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

That's two weeks—not 400 days, right?

[Christopher McNeil]

Yes, two weeks.

In the context of francophone veterans, that's a little different. I'll ask Jacques, who spends most of his time trying to fix that. We've seen a slip back from last year on that, but I'll let Jacques speak to it.

[Jacques Bouchard]

Unfortunately, we sit next to a giant. We're a very small board next to a very large organization that hires francophones. Therefore, it's very hard for us to retain francophones, which means that over the past two years, particularly the last one, we've unfortunately seen an increase in the number of weeks it takes us to render decisions in French.

We're fortunate because, as Mr. McNeil mentioned earlier, the government and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have recognized that we need more people, and we've received a significant increase in funding, $6.2 million, over the next two years. In fact, we've already started hiring francophones or at least bilingual people to be able to render decisions a little faster.

I can provide the committee with some statistics. Currently, in 2022‑23, we're at an average wait time of 57.1 weeks for applications in French, which is actually 400 days, whereas we're at 49.3 weeks for applications in English. In 2021‑22, we were at 44.5 weeks for applications in French and 42.7 weeks for applications in English. I hope that answers your question.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Yes. Thank you.

Given the dramatic increase and the size of the backlog, can you give us your assessment, Mr. McNeil, on the morale right now?

The last time we did a fairly in-depth study on the Veterans Review and Appeal Board was about 10 or 11 years ago, and this committee produced a report on suggested improvements. That was back in the days of John Larlee and Harold Leduc. I'm sure those names still resonate in the hall there.

Can you talk about the morale now? I know that COVID would be a factor as well, but I'm wondering about the culture.

[Christopher McNeil]

Well, we're quite proud of our culture. We've worked on it.

We believe that we have an emerging culture. We believe that we're establishing an organization where people want to come and work because we can offer our mantra: We want you to be successful in your professional life and your personal life, whatever that looks like to you. We have a very young staff. The board has been around for 25 years, so the first cohort, that version of the board, also has been around, and that cohort is now retiring out.

We have a very young staff, and we are fortunate to have a brand new facility in P.E.I. out on St. Peters Road that is fresh and new and vibrant. I just got the results of the most recent survey, and the board generally has scored higher than other organizations of our size in the civil service, so we're quite proud.

As Jacques says, we're an ant next to an elephant. There are always more opportunities at VAC than we can offer, so we're trying to say that you can come here and have a work-life balance, and that is working out for us.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Do you still hear your cases with a panel of three?