Evidence of meeting #47 for Veterans Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vrab.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Executive Director, Council of Canadian Administrative Tribunals
For VRAB or the department, we have not. This is the first contact on this issue.
October 22nd, 2012 / 4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Saez, the numbers the department posts say they process somewhere in the neighbourhood of 20,000 reviews a year. Approximately 70% are approved the first go-around, and then about 5,000 per year are dealt with at some level at VRAB. You mentioned that your group deals with 2,000 per year, and then they send them back to the department for approval. Is this included in the 70% that they quote?
Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pension Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
I believe so, yes.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
With this 2,000, are we talking about an MRI that maybe is not in the file? What are we dealing with in these 2,000 applications per year?
Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pension Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
I'll give it a first shot, and then I'll defer to Charles, who's more operationally based.
It generally has to do with evidence that is more difficult to find, either because of the passage of time, because of the great many different bases or locations the member has served in, or because for whatever reason it wasn't deemed important at the time of the first application.
I'll ask Charles to add more details.
Conservative
Ben Lobb Conservative Huron—Bruce, ON
Are you saying there are members who have come before, filed an application, and their medical file is incomplete? Is that what you're saying, that there are missing documents?
Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pension Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
There may be some instances of that. The retention of medical records has become much better in recent years because the Canadian Forces has made a greater effort to keep that documentation. It's fair to say they have come to recognize the importance of a complete medical record. The problem comes when somebody, 25 years ago, was running across a field during training, sprained an ankle, and was out for a couple of days. It was no big deal, so they didn't fill out the medical form the CF requires to be filled out. It's not until years later that the person aggravates the injury and realizes it goes way back to when the person was injured while running across a field. We then have to figure out how we go back now, lacking that official Canadian Forces medical report, and provide that kind of evidence. That's one example. Charles could probably give more detail than that.
Director, Appeals and Legal Issues, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
I'll try to do it rather quickly.
In order for a claim to be successful, essentially it has be a disability related to service. We have the passage of time and the compilation of records, which as Anthony has mentioned is getting a lot better. I will give two examples of the type of claims we call departmental reviews, using the service and the medical aspect.
The department finds that the disability that someone is claiming is a result of accident x, but they are not satisfied that accident x was a service-related accident. We will help the client. If we manage to find a report on injuries, a corroborating statement from a colleague, or whatever the case may be that satisfies that question, rather than go to the VRAB, we send that piece of evidence back to the department and essentially say that without that document they turned the person down, but now that they have the document, would they look at the case again.
It's the same thing from the medical perspective. The department is satisfied that the individual had the accident to which they relate the claimed condition while they were on duty—it was a service-related accident—but there is insufficient medical information to establish a connection between the disability and that service event. We get a doctor's opinion supporting the theory that yes, the development of this condition could be consistent with events that occurred, whether they occurred 25 years ago or over the past 25 years, and we send that back.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Greg Kerr
No, but we're going to try to get Mr. Zimmer in for a couple of questions to make sure we spread it around a little bit.
Mr. Zimmer, please.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I'll see what I can come up with here. To start, thanks to the servicemen and servicewomen who are in the room today. I don't know if anyone has acknowledged you today, but we sure appreciate what you have done.
I was pleasantly surprised that the bureau is a mechanism to assist veterans, that it is even there, for one. To somehow connect our veterans with what they are due, it's good to see you are there.
I will ask a question that Mr. Lizon dwelled on a bit before. Do you feel there are gaps in service? We see the BPA, but we also see the Royal Canadian Legion, which address similar but different issues. In your opinion, are there any gaps between the two levels of service?
Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pension Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
Do you mean between what the bureau does and what the Royal Canadian Legion does?
Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pension Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
The Royal Canadian Legion does a lot fewer cases, as you know. In many of those cases, we actually co-represent with them. We both provide support to that particular veteran.
Generally, the kind of representation they do before the board is quite similar to what we do. What they do that we don't do is more strategic advocacy on bigger issues, almost like—I don't want to call it lobbying. They actively lobby on behalf of veterans, whereas we are restricted to representing veterans before the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. There is that difference in responsibilities between the two organizations.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
Charles, can you expand on that at all? That was a pretty good answer.
Director, Appeals and Legal Issues, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
It provides veterans with an alternative as well. Let's say they come to us first and we give them our advice and they don't like it, or they'd like a second opinion. They would confer with the service bureau of the Legion. It's an excellent marriage or complementary system.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
I was going to follow up with that. I imagine there are certain areas that aren't followed as strongly by the other.
In the duplication of efforts that you have, is there a conflict in mandate at any point? If so, is there a method in place to make that better?
Director, Appeals and Legal Issues, Bureau of Pensions Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
With regard to conflict, nothing comes to mind. We work in cooperation with the Legion. We consult with each other on things we have in common. Of course, the service bureau of the Legion is only one aspect of its mandate and the many things it does on behalf of veterans.
In providing the services such as we do, my experience has been that we're complementary organizations.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River, BC
That's the word I was thinking of just now. It's more of a complementary relationship than a conflict relationship.
Executive Director and Chief Pensions Advocate, Bureau of Pension Advocates, Department of Veterans Affairs
If I could add to that, in fact we do a lot of training for the Legion for the work it does representing clients before VRAB, so there's a close working relationship there.
Conservative
Conservative