Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable committee members. Thank you for this invitation to appear before you in the context of your review of the new veterans charter.
With me is Ms. Dale Sharkey, director general of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.
As this is my first appearance here, I would like to tell you a bit about myself. My background is in law. I left practice last year to begin a six-year term as chair of the board. On a personal note, I am the proud son of a Second World War veteran and prisoner of war. My father taught me to remember and pay tribute to our veterans. I bring that perspective to my role as chair.
I know that many of you are new to the committee. I appreciate the opportunity to spend the next several minutes talking to you about the board and its mandate.
[Translation]
I also know that all of you have a keen interest and commitment in making sure that the veterans affairs portfolio is honouring and serving Canada's veterans well. We share that commitment at the board. Our objective is to ensure that our traditional veterans, Canadian Forces members and veterans, RCMP applicants and their families receive the disability benefits to which they are entitled under the law.
[English]
To achieve this, the board provides applicants with an independent appeal program for disability decisions made by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This mandate has remained constant since the board's establishment as an independent tribunal in 1995, even through the introduction of the new veterans charter.
The board continues to offer redress for disability decisions, but now has the authority to review both disability pension decisions made under the Pension Act and disability award decisions made under part 3 of the new veterans charter.
It is important to note that the board does not provide redress for any of the other programs introduced by the new veterans charter. Redress for the other programs is done internally by the department.
The board's specialized program includes two levels of redress--review and appeal--for disability pension and award applications dealing with matters of entitlement and assessment as well as the final level of appeal for war veterans allowance cases.
Since the introduction of the new veterans charter in 2006, the board has seen a steady increase in the volume of applications for review and appeal of disability award decisions. Today, 46% of our review decisions and 23% of our appeal decisions are related to disability award claims.
To be very clear, the role of the board is not to write nor to evaluate the legislation. Rather, it is to ensure its fair interpretation and application in every case.
As the appeal tribunal for Canada's disability compensation programs for veterans, the board operates at arm's length from the department and the minister. Our decision-making is not influenced by them.
[Translation]
Our members are appointed by the Governor in Council to fulfill the board's legislated mandate. They have the jurisdiction to affirm, vary or reverse the decision being reviewed or appealed; they are not bound by the previous decision. They are, however, bound by the laws enacted by Parliament to govern the disability pension and award programs provided to our veterans.
[English]
During the past year as chair, I have come to appreciate how the board's program is designed to give those who have served Canada every opportunity to establish their entitlement to benefits.
First and foremost, the laws enacted by Parliament require that veterans receive the benefit of doubt throughout the adjudicative process. This does not mean that every case will succeed.
The laws also require that applicants provide sufficient credible evidence of the existence of a permanent disability and of the relationship to service. The benefit of doubt provision ensures that the decision-makers consider this evidence in the best light possible.
Individuals need only be dissatisfied with their disability decision to request an independent hearing before the board. There are no time limits placed on this right of appeal.
After individuals have received a decision from the department, they have access to two levels of independent redress with the board.
The first level is the review hearing. This hearing provides applicants with the first and only opportunity in the process to appear before the decision-makers, along with any witnesses they choose, and to give their testimony. To make it easier for applicants to attend in person, we convene review hearings in more than 30 locations across Canada.
The value of the review hearing should not be underestimated. Oral testimony provided by applicants and their witnesses, along with new evidence, is largely responsible for the board's decision to vary the department's decision at review.
[Translation]
If an applicant remains dissatisfied after receiving the board's review decision, he or she can request an appeal hearing in front of a different panel. While individuals may certainly attend their appeal hearing, the legislation does not permit oral testimony at this level. Rather, the hearing provides the representative with a further opportunity to make arguments in support of the claim.
Throughout the board's hearing process, applicants have access to free legal assistance and representation. This is significant because the hearing process is nonadversarial: no one is arguing against the claim. Our members often ask questions—not to oppose the claim but to better understand it. After all, they are required to interpret and apply legislation based on the evidence presented and to render decisions that give clear reasons for their rulings.
[English]
Adjudication is no easy job. More often than not, the claims heard by the board involve complex medical issues and legal arguments. The cases of men and women who come before the board are often compelling. These people have served their country well and honourably in times of war and peace. We recognize this and we take our role very seriously.
In 2010 the board will continue to fulfill its mandate by delivering a program of independent redress for applicants. Our operating budget of $9.9 million will be invested wisely in support of four strategic priorities. Our first strategic priority is to conduct review and appeal hearings and to render decisions based on evidence and legislation.
Currently there are 25 members on the board who hear and decide the claims. All of them were appointed or reappointed under a transparent and merit-based selection process. Half of the members are based out of cities across Canada to hear the reviews and the other half hear appeals at our head office in Charlottetown.
About 85 operational staff work in Charlottetown to support the hearing process. To the end of February, the board had finalized 5,000 review and appeal decisions since the beginning of the fiscal year. While this seems like a daunting number, it represents a manageable workload for our members and our staff.
Of course, we recognize that applicants expect and deserve timely hearings and fair decisions. For this reason, we are continually working to improve our program to better serve applicants. In 2010 we will work to communicate clearly about our program and to report regularly on our activities to you, our parliamentarians, and to Canadians.
For your information, the board began submitting quarterly reports about our program and performance to this committee in 2007. Our third quarterly report is included in an information kit for you to take away today. We will continue to provide you with this quarterly update and hope it proves useful to you.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I will be pleased to answer your questions.
:
What that tells me, then, is that the people initially who received the claim said no, went to you, and you eventually said yes. My question is why can't the folks who initially get it make that initial approval?
What you're doing in many cases is this. The front line people are saying, “No, we can't do this. I don't have the authority to make this decision. No, it has to go to Charlottetown for review and appeal.” And 59% of the cases are correct, so my question--and I'm thinking this for my Conservative counterparts, who like to reduce the size of government--is why can't those folks who initially get it make that initial approval on their own?
I speak to a lot of front line folks, and they're told they only have a certain level of responsibility that they can authorize. After that it has to go to a higher level. I'm thinking it drags out the process. I have a lot of older fellows, and they're being told this can take weeks, months, and in some cases a couple of years before you're finally heard out.
That's my first question.
Second, you provide legal expertise. I know most of these really great fellows and ladies across the country who provide legal assistance for veterans. My question to you is this. If a veteran wishes to seek legal advice outside of the DVA-appointed legal advisers, why wouldn't they be allowed to do that?
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Larlee and Ms. Sharkey, thank you very much for coming today.
I think our friend has pointed out that we know that this is a complicated area, a continuing challenging area. The questions are penetrating, and we realize you can't answer all of them because you're in a quasi-judicial role, so the issue continues for us.
I would like to start by just pointing out-- and certainly the others over there would not have been part of that visit last year--that we certainly appreciated the briefing we got and the understanding of how the process works. And it's a compliment I gave the former government for setting this board up. I think you would find the family connection back then with the party of the day was rather obvious when it was set up. So when you look at that question, you realize that's not necessarily a new affiliation. It has happened.
The point I'd want to stress from all of us is that we understand and appreciate the fact that the board is independent from the government and has to do its own work. I think that's how it has to work.
I would like to ask...and I realize you're limited in what you can say. We are doing the charter, obviously looking for ways we can suggest changes or improvements to the process and how to make it a little better for the vets. With the new vets coming on board, we realize the challenges continue to change. But looking at it, how would you describe the differences since the charter has come in, and what should we be aware of and mindful of as parliamentarians as we're making suggestions? I know you can't make direct recommendations, but you have obviously run into changes since the charter has come into place. Maybe you can highlight what some of those are for us.
:
I'd like to comment on that. I really appreciate, first of all, the work your committee members do for the veterans and for the process of making sure that we get it right for veterans.
Not always is it an easy task for an individual who is appointed to fill these responsibilities, because they are heavy responsibilities. I want to thank your members for the work they've done, especially in clearing up that large backlog, and for taking the time to do what they've done, which was go across the country and make sure that veterans were taken care of.
I also want to pick up on a comment--I like the road was going down--about efficiencies and what I would call red tape. So often we experience, at least in my riding, people being frustrated by the process of dealing with government programs that seemingly tend to grow, become more complex, and become more laden with requirements and forms that need to be filled out. We hear it every day of the week in my constituency office. It is, to a large extent, my staff simplifying issues for people.
I'm sure this has been an issue all along the line. I think that streamlining administrative red tape is an area for future governments to concentrate on; I'll put it like that.
From your vantage point on this board, have you been directly or indirectly involved in how this issue--reducing red tape, if you will, and making sure that issues are handled on a timely basis--is being addressed in your area of dealing with veterans?