ACVA Committee Report

SUPPLEMENTARY OPINION OF THE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION

The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs on the

Review of Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), November 2012

New Democrats would like to thank the witnesses who appeared before the committee for this study on the “Review of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.” 

While we support the underlying objective of reviewing the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), the study itself was woefully inadequate and a sham.  It was not helpful that the Conservatives introduced a motion restricting the committee’s study to just four meetings.  This meant that the committee spent only eight hours “studying” VRAB when it should have spent at least six months.  In comparison, the Office of the Veterans’ Ombudsman spent 11 months to complete a study on a couple of particular aspects of VRAB. 

It needs to be said that this report is not a thorough study on the topic of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board because of the Conservative imposed time restrictions on this study (just eight hours of deliberations).  Quite simply, in eight hours, the committee was unable to produce a report that gave proper consideration to the issues and problems with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.  As well, individual veterans and several veterans’ organizations have expressed profound disappointment that they were not asked to provide testimony to the committee for this particular study. 

In our opinion, the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is the number one problem facing Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans’ and their families across this country. For many years, veterans have been dissatisfied with the Veterans Review and Appeal Board.  It angers them to know that the members of VRAB are often appointed because of their political connections and have little military or medical experience to make decisions on their eligibility for a disability pension. Canadian Forces and RCMP veterans also express frustration that the Board discounts the professional medical opinion of the applicants’ doctor or specialist when they assess their disability claim and are frustrated at the Board’s poor record in applying the “benefit of doubt” provision. 

The VRAB appeal process is not working like it should and there is a high level of dissatisfaction among veterans and their families.  A report completed by the Veterans Ombudsman Guy Parent in March 2012 (“Veterans’ Right to Fair Adjudication:  Analysis of Federal Courts decisions pertaining to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board) identified issues of great concern including that VRAB was failing to give veterans the benefit of the doubt, not disclosing medical information used in its rulings and were vague in explaining their decisions to military and RCMP veterans.

New Democrats have proposed replacing the politically appointed VRAB.  Our bill reads:

The Government of Canada must, in consultation with Canadian veterans and veterans’ organizations, develop new legislation to repeal and replace the Veterans Review and Appeal Board Act in order to establish a new and simplified regime that incorporates a medical-evidence-based peer-reviewed process for making decisions regarding veterans’ entitlements under relevant federal statutes and must introduce that legislation in the House of Commons within three years after the day on which this Act comes into force.

In conclusion, the NDP have grave concerns with this report and are releasing this supplementary opinion. 

Respectfully submitted,

Peter Stoffer, MP, Sackville-Eastern Shore, Official Opposition Critic for Veterans Affairs

Sylvain Chicoine, MP, Chateauguay-Saint-Constant, Deputy Critic for Veterans Affairs

Irene Mathyssen, MP London-Fanshawe

Manon Perreault, MP, Montcalm