It is low.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
Evidence of meeting #3 for Veterans Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was board.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Some of the older veterans would maybe have more of a reason to look for benefits or compensation.
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Yes, and the regular force, the younger military, are more assertive and have a greater knowledge of what their rights are. The more power to them, if they know where to file for and obtain a disability pension.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
To get back to the question, do you think that if the regulations or the criteria for compensation and benefits were a little more detailed, it would cut down on the number of appeals?
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
I don't think the objective should be to cut down or circumvent or reduce or increase. I think the objective should be that we all know what we're doing. These are the rules; these are the criteria, and if you're in, you're in. If you're not, you're not.
Back in 1999, the Supreme Court was looking at all the disability compensation systems in the country, including disability pensions under the CPP, the Canadian Pension Commission. The Supreme Court reminded everybody that the Pension Act and the disability compensation for the military is an event-based system--like workers' compensation, for instance. In other words, you can't just walk up to the department, tell them you've got a disability, and ask for compensation. You have to prove there was an incident, an event--that something happened during your service that can be linked to your disability.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
Colin Mayes Conservative Okanagan—Shuswap, BC
Does the department review your appeals and set that as some sort of precedent for the cases it's dealing with on a daily basis?
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:50 p.m.
Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Yes, indeed--and we have the power, for instance, to make interpretive decisions, which we did about a year and a half ago. We clarified the concept of new evidence on reconsideration and built into the system due diligence, so that people understand that it's important, when they file or claim for something, that they come forward prepared with all the evidence, reasons, and justifications they have up front, so that we can deal with the problem up front.
4:50 p.m.
Conservative
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
We swapped, but if I don't use up all my time, it will go back to Anthony.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
Among the many very interesting points that have come up this afternoon, what stood out to me was your reference on page 4 of your notes: “The change in our applicant profile from the traditional war veteran to the younger Canadian Forces members presents new challenges for the Board”. We've all had many conversations with veterans from the Second World War, and it brought into sharp focus a conversation I've had a few times with one of my elderly constituents in the little town of Massey in my northern Ontario riding.
He, for years and years, has been trying to get his disability claim for a knee injury recognized and accepted. He described for me the context, so when I read this, I thought there sure is a change in the context from the early days of World War II to these new recruits going in. Often--most times--they are teenaged boys or, I should say, young men. He described being injured in training. He had an injury to his knee. I believe he's had surgery and I'm not sure about a knee replacement, but it bothered him his whole life.
He recounted the peer pressure--in fairness it was a challenging time--to just go ahead and put up with the pain and go out marching, and the pressure not to be seen as a wimp or as a weakling, which of course he was not and is not. He suffered through it, but to pay the price, in his mind, later on.
This is not to question the decisions on this particular case, because I'm not going to give you his name, of course, but are the board members trained to make that paradigm shift from the 1940s to today? When they're dealing with cases now, as you mentioned yourself, Mr. Marchand, the appellants are much more knowledgeable about the rules and their rights. When you're a young teenaged man in the 1940s--or maybe shortly after the war, in the late 1940s or early 1950s--making these claims, your degree of sophistication is much lower. I know this is acknowledged, but is it actually in the training for board members? Are they told, when they're dealing with somebody from World War II, to look at it this way? Not that you're being unfair to somebody from modern times, but it was a different time. I would like your comments on that. I find it interesting.
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Of course, you're talking about the individual who wouldn't want to pass off as being a malingerer.
4:55 p.m.
Liberal
Brent St. Denis Liberal Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON
Right. He was a brave young soldier who got hurt in training, probably in the first days or weeks. Imagine, as my colleague here said, going home with that and what people would think of you. It was a very tough time.
4:55 p.m.
Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Indeed it is.
When you're trying to ascertain the evidentiary foundation of an event occurring in any given case, there are all sorts of evidentiary rules and avenues offered to you. One is obviously a documented report on file of an injury. That's an example of something that is extremely useful. The military are pretty good at that, at documenting what they call the “medical attendance records”. Often you will find notes from the doctor, way back to the 1940s: “Showed up with a bad knee today...gave him an ointment...will be okay.”
If an individual didn't want to go on sick parade because he wouldn't pass off as a malingerer, he can obviously maintain that and testify to that at the hearing. That's where the board member's professional training at ascertaining whether or not he's telling the truth becomes paramount. That's why you have a hearing sometimes, because the evidence is not there.
So the training of the board member is to look at the documentary reported accident claims that are on file, what the hard paper tells you, and if you don't have that paperwork, then you apply what the law tells you to apply, and that's the benefit of the doubt, by which the circumstances of the accident explain why there's no documentary report or injury report, and if you believe the individual who's testifying in front of you as to the circumstances of his injury, once that is ascertained, there is link to the present-day disability.
So it's experience. It's training. It's something that all board members face, and must face, and are trained to deal with.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I'm more than willing to share my time. There are just a few comments I'd like to make, and then perhaps your answers might take up a little more of it.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
You'll share? Oh, you're so sweet, Gilles.
I think we can agree on one thing, that the objective of both the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is the same, which is to serve veterans.
5 p.m.
Conservative
Betty Hinton Conservative Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC
I think maybe that's something that has been overlooked from time to time, and I'm hoping we're going to get that back on track.
I found Mr. Valley's comments very interesting. I will preface what I'm going to say by saying that some of my best friends are lawyers, so I have nothing against lawyers, but I happen to agree with Mr. Valley that there are some other criteria that should probably be looked at very seriously in appointments. One of those would be military experience, which I think would be extremely helpful. The other would be a health background, so that you could have a better idea of determining how this person in front of you is actually feeling.
The benefit of the doubt was mentioned a couple of times today. I can tell you, I don't speak for the minister, but I can certainly speak for myself, and in my own opinion, the benefit of the doubt is something that is first and foremost. The most important thing we do is to give the benefit of the doubt to veterans who have served their country, when they come and stand in front of us.
The other part is that some of the comments that have been made have been very interesting, too, but I'd like you to tell me whether, in your opinion, with the peacekeeping and the peacemaking missions we're involved in worldwide, you believe that today, in the present time, the record-keeping has improved over, let's say, World War II. I don't imagine there was a whole lot of emphasis put on record-keeping for injuries in World War II, but I would like you to reassure me that this emphasis is currently there with the new veterans.
5 p.m.
Chair, Veterans Review and Appeal Board
Yes, record-keeping has improved. The board's function, however, is often to rule in the absence of documentary evidence. But I can say that the record-keeping has improved.
