It’s time to reconsider service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada

Monday, March 31, 2014 The Hill Times Page11

It’s time to reconsider service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada

(Photo) Too often, structural changes are proposed to deal with problems that are actually the symptoms of a much larger issue.

(Photo) The Hill Times photograph by Jake Wright

Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent says the outcomes often experienced by veterans who are denied benefits, after having gone through the entire application and appeal process, are a symptom of problems rooted in the application process itself. If we fixed the front end of the process, we would reduce the effort (and cost) currently expended to provide the various levels of appeal at the end of the process.

By VETERANS OMBUDSMAN GUY PARENT
Published: Monday, 03/31/2014 12:00 am EDT
Last Updated: Monday, 03/31/2014 12:12 am EDT

OTTAWA—Too often, structural changes are proposed to deal with problems that are actually the symptoms of a much larger issue. Concerning problems with service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada, we need to deal with the root causes and, to do that effectively, we need to understand the end state we are trying to achieve.  Simply going for structural change, as proposed by Michel Drapeau and Joshua Juneau in their Jan. 13, 2014 article in The Hill Times, where they put forward the need to create a new administrative oversight body, may justify the existence of such a new organization, but would it be any more effective than the current structure if we haven’t addressed the root causes of today’s problems? I don’t think so.

The support of veterans and their families through effective and fair access to benefits—regardless of where or when one served—should be a priority for Canada. Since the current way of doing business is not generating the results needed to resolve the problems facing veterans and their families, we need to change our vision of the future and tackle the problem of service delivery head-on at the root level.

I believe that the structural elements necessary to effectively deliver benefits and services to veterans are in place today, but the system continues to fail some of our veterans for two primary reasons.  The first reason is addressed in my report on the New Veterans Charter and concerns the shortcomings in three Charter program areas: financial, vocational rehabilitation and assistance, and family support. The second reason is a complex, multi-layered and outdated service delivery process.  

The outcomes often experienced by veterans who are denied benefits, after having gone through the entire application and appeal process, are a symptom of problems rooted in the application process itself.  If we fixed the front end of the process, we would reduce the effort (and cost) currently expended to provide the various levels of appeal at the end of the process.  

Specifically, if applicants had a clear understanding of application requirements; if they received full disclosure on what documentation the decision maker was considering; if they were consulted in the process when documentation was not sufficient, and; if they received very clear and understandable reasons for decisions that showed the logic for the decision, we would likely see a reduction in the number of reviews and appeals.  

Indeed, I have reported on this in the past and emphasized that Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board should be focusing on finding ways of making the right benefit adjudication decision on the first application based on liberally interpreting legislation, rather than expending effort (and cost) on perfecting the appeal process. 

Let’s expand on this further.

Once service relationship has been established, what would happen if Veterans Affairs Canada started accepting veterans’ documentation at the front end of the process at face value and applied a presumption that military service has an impact on veterans and their family, that the majority of veterans are honest and that medical professionals are qualified to provide the appropriate substantiation. Would the benefit adjudication process fall apart? I doubt it. 

If the criteria are clearly communicated and a medical professional provides a diagnosis, why does every application need to be scrutinized further in the minutest detail? This level of examination for every application is slowing down the application process for all veterans and affecting access for many eligible veterans on the off chance that someone may not qualify for a benefit. 

Is that fair? 

Without getting into the mechanics of how this would work, let’s look at this idea conceptually. How would Canadians like it if the Canadian Revenue Agency made no presumptions when citizens file their income tax return? If they weren’t afforded some presumptions it would be a long, drawn out process for everyone with an audit on all of their filed information before a decision could be made. We’re talking months, if not years, on the adjudication of one tax year alone. I don’t think many Canadians would be happy with this scenario. Do you? So, why are veterans subjected to such scrutiny by the Veterans Affairs Canada’s service delivery application process?

I suggest that Veterans Affairs Canada adopts a system similar to that used for the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, or the Canada Revenue Agency whereby if the documentation criteria are met, benefits are provided and periodic audits are done on files to ensure quality control and to detect any fraudulent applications. In fact, this approach is already being used by Veterans Affairs Canada in some areas of service delivery, such as health-related travel or the Veterans Independence Program, so why not for the application process of other benefits?

And, I’ll go further. 

I believe that the current system of veterans’ legislation is too complex. Generations of legislation have been piled on top of the other without sufficient attention to simplifying the complexity of this legislative build-up. Complexity is costly and at a time of economic restraint, would it not make sense to stop tinkering with individual components, collapse legislation and adopt a plain language approach.  

In addition, is it not time for Veterans Affairs Canada to begin to truly liberally interpret legislation, as it is meant to do? Is it not time that the Canadian Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Canada services and benefits are better aligned so that the transition from military service to civilian life is much less complex than it is today?  Something as simple as starting a Veterans Affairs Canada file the moment a member joins the Canadian Armed Forces, conducting a direct transfer of files when a service person transitions from the Canadian Armed Forces to Veterans Affairs Canada, and providing a veterans identification card when a service person leaves, could be major enablers to improve how services and benefits are provided.

Last fall, the Veterans Consultation Group called on the Government of Canada to have a “heroic moment” and do what is right for our veterans and their families. Now is the time to move forward and reconsider service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada.  

Finding better ways to support our veterans and their families is not impossible, but it does require a change in our vision of the future. The gaps that need to be addressed in the current suite of benefits have been identified and validated in my report on the New Veterans Charter. We need to make these changes and then move forward with a new vision of service delivery at Veterans Affairs Canada. Anything less is a disservice to veterans and their families and Canadian taxpayers.

The time for action is now. The future awaits us. 

Guy Parent is Canada’s Veterans Ombudsman.

news@hilltimes.com

The Hill Times

 

Lucille Hodgins

Media Relations and Parliamentary Affairs Advisor

Office of the Veterans Ombudsman

Tel: 613-943-7884

Cell: 613-617-7205

The Spitirt of Denial at VRAB - great job Dave!

Veteran Watch is a collection (not organization) of like-minded veterans willing to take the time and effort to conduct meaningful research into the welfare of veterans. What Veteran Watch provides as evidence is well-researched and credible.  In this case, if the government cannot ensure and effective VRAB; Veteran Watch will document and comment.  

As the author of the attached document I give all recipients permission to disseminate to the public, other organizations, and the media.  See here for the document: http://bit.ly/1gmEwXq Given the concerns voiced by the OVO, Parliamentary Committee and, most importantly, Veterans it was appropriate to conduct a review of VRABs behaviours. Peter MacKay MP and opposition members were included in the original email as the Department of Justice has a stake in the effective functioning of Federal Boards.

The report provided is the first of three that concern VRAB. The report indicates that VRAB has not adequately responded to the criticisms made by both the Parliamentary Committee and the OVO.  Instead it indicates that VRAB has paid mere lip service or "spun" its responses.  The second report is in production and examines how VRAB responds to Federal Court decisions.  The third report examines how Veterans perceive their treatment by VRAB.  Data collection of the third report has only recently begun.  

The effective functioning of VRAB directly affects every veteran who potentially requires the services of VAC. Those veterans adversely affected by the New Veterans Charter will feel the negative effects mentioned in this report more sharply than the rest of the veteran population.  

The original recipients of the email were politicians - they we sent their copies mere minutes before you.  Separate emails with the same content will be disseminated to elements of the media.  

Please direct all questions to the undersigned.

Sincerely,

David T. MacLeod CD MA

Veteran Watch

veteranwatch.blogspot.ca

@veteranwatch

902 482-0753

Minister Fantino do you have an alternative to the unaccountable VRAB Board?

Minister Fantino,

Thank you for reviewing my request but I do not trust and have no faith in Larlee given his previous misleading letters, misleading presentation to Parliamentary/ Senate Committee's and not being held accountable for inappropriately spending taxpayers money in trips to England. 

Do you have an alternative solution?

The Board that you are hiding behind and using as an excuse not to do the right thing has already ignored one specialist's report, and I do not trust them even though a second doctor has backed the first one up.  Those I have now uploaded to my VAC file and are also here http://bit.ly/1dR6K9P

The assessment that was done on my case initially after I finally won after 13 years, was done on a report for winning my case, and I was not told by BPA to have him speak to the table of disabilities as I had not won yet.  When I did win, I was not brought in as expected by your department for an assessment as I should have been, and as I stated the doctor's more specific report was completely ignored by the non medical VRAB Board members.

Again, I ask you do you have an alternative other than the unaccountable VRAB Board?

You would think that with the recent suicides that you would treat this seriously rather than denying me depressive Meds as your department recently has done.

http://bit.ly/1bsy6Sy

Captain (Retired) Jim Newton

Injured Veterans are Being tossed to the Curb

From my personal experience I would have to agree!

Read my Spirit of Denial blog HERE

This has got to STOP NOW!  Deny deny deny is how they treat us Veterans, and coming up on Nov 11th they will shake our hands and pretend they treat us ok.  Let's face it everything they do is all about saving money.  While I won after 13 years, they were only liable for 3 years of back pay.  5 years is what I should have received, but of course they didn't cause they will want to save money no matter the excuse. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-6/page-11.html

Lucky for me mine was on the old system due to my application date, so at least I don't have to be on the NVC for the lump sum get out of our faces payment which is a fraction of what the old system was, but oh wait - if you don't like the one lump sum they will give you that lesser amount in four even smaller payments.

I guess I must be one of the Veterans "at a different level of service" than most others here:



as not only did I have to fight a brutal battle for 13 years but now after I won, they have chosen to ignore the specialists report who they finally did believe - I have to wait again for another hearing to present a second doctor's opinion.  But it is possible that the non-medical unaccountable board members like VRAB Board Members (Richard A. Rennie and Richard Bonin)  will find yet another excuse to deny another medical opinion.

The Spirit of Denial has gone on long enough.  Minister Fantino enough with the delays, do a Ministerial review and grant my percentage as it should be without any further delay.  And grant me the 5 years or back to the date of the original application as you REALLY SHOULD!

Oh ya, forgot to mention my own fight with SISIP and LTD, I had to take them to court, settled on the court room steps and then had to give my lawyer $20,000+.

Enough is enough Minister Fantino act for this Veteran NOW.

One Veteran, One Standard.

Vets department and board struggled for years to contain privacy leaks

By: Murray Brewster, The Canadian Press
02/16/2012 4:52 PM

OTTAWA - Veterans Affairs Canada and the independent board that reviews claims of ex-soldiers grappled with allegations of leaked personal information long before a privacy scandal blew up in public.

A series of leaked documents show the department and the agency tried — and ultimately failed — in the spring of 2009 to tighten up the system and clamp down on bureaucrats who'd been rifling through the files of veterans advocates and opponents.

A May 28, 2009 letter, signed by the deputy chair of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, noted that a working group from the agency and the department itself had been assembled to examine privacy issues.

"Security Services has recently released two communiques on this topic, and will continue to educate employees on a regular basis," wrote James MacPhee in a letter to follow board member Harold Leduc, whose medical file had become the source of gossip and innuendo around the review agency.

The letter noted that staff at the review board were to be given mandatory privacy training.

MacPhee assured the former warrant officer that his privacy invasion was taken seriously and that federal officials were looking at restricting access to the computer data base where the files were held.

Yet, the department was not fully galvanized to action for another 18 months until the scandal involving advocate Sean Bruyea blew up in public — prompting among other things a major audit of procedures and practises by the country's privacy watchdog.

Access to the data base was not tightened until the fall of 2010 as part of the Harper government's damage control exercise following revelations Bruyea's medical records were sown into a ministerial briefing note.

A spokeswoman for the review board, Danielle Gauthier, said the independent agency took steps a year before the department to safeguard information and also adopted many of the steps taken by Veterans Affairs in its clean up efforts.

"The Chairman has made privacy and the protection of personal information top priorities at the board," she wrote in an email response to questions posed by The Canadian Press.

"When a privacy breach occurs, we take immediate steps to address it, including corrective actions and disciplinary measures where appropriate."

Despite that, the board was the source of a 2011 release of a report on Harold Leduc that had not been vetted for private information.

A request to interview board chair John Larlee was denied last week.
Liberal attempts to get the privacy issue heard by a House of Commons committee were swept behind closed doors this week.

"This information just strengthens the needs to deal with this in public," said Liberal veterans critic Sean Casey.
"It's apparent that Harold Leduc is only the tip of the iceberg. A Parliamentary committee is supposed to delve into these things."

NDP veterans critic Peter Stoffer said it's amazing the Harper government is asking Canadian to trust that it will protect online privacy in the controversial surveillance bill, yet it allows bureaucrats free rein with some of the country's most vulnerable citizens.

"It is simply not credible for the department to claim they've cleaned up their act," Stoffer said.

Officials at the federal Privacy Commissioner's Office confirm that, in addition to conducting a major audit of Veterans Affairs, it is pursuing 12 separate complaints from individuals about the department.

All of the protests were filed in 2010.
Veterans Affairs Minister Steven Blaney said in the House of Commons this week that he's open to strengthening privacy guarantees even further, but that the 10 point action plan implemented following the Bruyea case was having a positive effect.

Yet, Bruyea himself cast doubt on that Thursday, saying his battles with the department did not end with the 2010 settlement of his lawsuit against the federal government, which saw a $400,000 award for damages and legal costs.

He was initially able to track the leak of his information through Privacy Act requests. Most of the original 12,000 documents he received related to the 2005-06 timeframe.

His pursuit of more up-to-date records has hit a brick wall because the department has apparently stopped answering his requests. Before the gate came down he'd received an additional 18,000 pages — enough information for him to file further complaints last year with Privacy Commissioner Jennifer Stoddart.
Four of those complaints have come back as well-founded, according to letters obtained by The Canadian Press.

Bruyea was apparently accused last week by the deputy minister of veterans affairs in a private meeting of having an axe to grind and being biased.

"I don't need to believe in conspiracies to see that (Veteran's Affairs) culture is really just a conspiracy of incompetence," he said.

Bruyea noted that the department has had a comprehensive policy on personal information since 1999 and all departments have been required to follow federal Treasury Board privacy guidelines since 1998.

That should have been enough to safeguard his medical files, as well as those belonging to Leduc and others, and promise to fix the system are merely window dressing, he said.
"Had (Veterans Affairs) followed either of these plans, none of any of these breaches would have happened," he said. "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. What we are talking about is ineptitude and a complete disregard for not just the law but the humanity of the victims."