National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Wouldn't it make it easier for those veterans who then have to prove all of these things and have to go through all of that? Wouldn't it make it easier and faster if you already had a pre-approved list, as you say, for these sites and for these contaminants? Wouldn't it make it a faster process for veterans who are, at this point, suffering?

[Steven Harris]

I think the answer to that one is that we don't have a presumptive model of decision-making. As the brigadier-general testified earlier, it's not because you were exposed to something that you necessarily develop something. What we don't have is a system by which it's assumed or presumed that you get something from the actual activity that you've been under. It could be a physical injury or a mental health injury, or it could certainly be something that develops as a result of exposure. There does have to be something that links it from the service perspective.

I understand the question that if there were contaminants at a particular site, and if somebody was there and they have cancer, then isn't that the link that needs to be done? It's not a presumptive model from that point of view, but it is part of the information and the evidence used in decision-making.

The veterans themselves don't have to actually prove, necessarily, that they were at site X, given that it is either identified in Canadian Armed Forces information or identified perhaps even in their service records that they were in a site that was exposed to chemicals of some sort or that they worked in a trade that had them exposed, as I think Mr. Hammerschmidt explained in the first hour. If they were working with vehicles, for example, and were always using the same kinds of chemical products on a regular basis, day-to-day, that could have exposed them, these are all factors in the decision-making process, but they aren't necessarily straight links either.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

The very extensive study done by the veterans affairs committee had about 42 recommendations. One of them was recommendation 17, which was to develop a site registry for chemicals that people are exposed to. Could you talk about the implementation of that recommendation within your department?

[Steven Harris]

My department would be dependent on the Canadian Armed Forces for developing those site lists.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

The response to it....

[Steven Harris]

Yes. It was a Canadian Armed Forces lead who responded to it. They're in the midst of it. They have some of that information already, as was testified to here earlier. It's about making it comprehensive so that Veterans Affairs can also use that information to be able to render decisions, as I've just described, so there's more work to do on it, absolutely.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Yes, because they asked for that, and this was a significant part. It made it to a recommendation. Wouldn't it suggest that the list wasn't as comprehensive as was previously mentioned? Wouldn't asking for it now suggest that the list you talked about before wasn't as comprehensive as it needed to be?

[Steven Harris]

Mr. Chair, I would say that they're always in the midst of updating the sites, the experiences and the exposures that may have taken place as a result.

I know there was a question in the first hour that referenced whether we go back and look at sites from before, where chemicals that were used may have new links to potential conditions and cancers, or look at sites that were looked at differently when they were closed in a particular era and need to be looked at again. I think that's part of keeping it as a living list, something that can be updated. I don't think it will ever be entirely comprehensive and definitive, because it can always be revisited to add things that may have, after research, developed into different kinds of potential exposures as well.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

The Americans are actually pretty far ahead of us in terms of identifying occupational illness and toxic exposures. They have proactive registries around burn pits, Agent Orange and other toxic exposures. They've passed the PACT Act, which expands VA benefits for veterans who've experienced those exposures.

Have there been conversations within Veterans Affairs Canada on how to better our processes to show more of that proactive work being done? How can we expedite that process to be more proactive, maybe like the Americans are?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

[Steven Harris]

I might just ask Mr. Svenson to answer that one quickly in terms of the work we do with our American partners and others on this issue.

[Nathan Svenson, Acting Senior Director, Disability and Healthcare Policy, Department of Veterans Affairs]

Sure.

The PACT Act that was introduced in August 2022 had two components to it. It was a huge expansion in terms of both health care and benefit eligibility.

On the health care part, if we separate those two, it provided access to the U.S. Veterans Affairs health administration services and care to those veterans. In our public health care system, that's already provided to veterans.

The benefit expansion it provided added 20 presumptive conditions for burn pits, Agent Orange and other toxic exposures. It also ensured—and this is important—that veterans had access to toxic exposure screening, that every veteran enrolled in VA health care had screening available to them every five years—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, we're going to have to leave the answer there. We're way past time.

Mr. Tolmie has six minutes.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you for being generous.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

No, it's not yet Christmas.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Harris, for joining us today.

I'd like to start off by saying that I know we've been talking about cancer quite a bit. I think it should be on record that cancer is not the only condition that has been linked with hazardous toxic materials, and that there are neurological disorders that should be recognized. We should be remembering that, because there are others who are suffering.

I'm going to piggyback on some of the questions and comments.

One of the comments you made, Mr. Harris, was in your opening testimony and in one of your answers. Veterans apply and they say they have a condition; we know the process. Then, you said, it comes to you. You sift through it and go through it with your professionals, and then you come back with either “approved” or “denied”.

A veteran who's denied knows they've been exposed to something. How do they prove it? When they know they've been exposed, how do they come back to you and say, “I know. I've been through this. I know I've been exposed to this.” How do they convince you to change your mind to approve them for their benefits?

[Steven Harris]

I would start by saying a couple of things.

One is, as I've indicated, that we will work from certainly a veteran's attestation of the experience they've had. That's one element. If a veteran indicates that they've been exposed to something, either in a very specific incident or over a prolonged period of time, that's taken into consideration. As we've been discussing, it's aligned with both available research and available evidence that could be used from Canadian Armed Forces exposure sites, contamination sites and things of those nature.

If they come to us, they're also going to come to us with a medical diagnosis. Their doctor will also write up a diagnosis to say, “Veteran X has this.” While they don't necessarily assign what the cause is, they can speak to what is the likely course of the cause of something. Then we can look at it from the medical point of view as well.

Cancers are very difficult. Neurological issues are very difficult, and I appreciate your highlighting that as another potential outcome of exposure, because it's important that we respect the fact that there are a number of things that could come from exposure, and that's another element of this.

We'll take that all into consideration. We'll look at the research, the diagnosis and all of the available information and render a decision. If a decision is not favourable in that case, veterans have access to a very strong appeals process. Through the bureau of pension advocates, which is housed within Veterans Affairs, they have entitlement to have a lawyer represent them for a quasi-judicial hearing at a Veterans Review and Appeal Board. The lawyer will help them gather evidence as well to do that.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Harris. I think it's important for us to have that on the record.

What about civilian employees? Do they still have the same access to that process?

[Steven Harris]

Veterans Affairs does not support civilian employees of DND or elsewhere. We only support veterans and members of the RCMP, for whom we also do disability adjudication.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have one minute, Mr. Tolmie.

[Fraser Tolmie, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

I'd like to share my time with Mr. Stewart, if he wants to finish up on the question he had earlier on.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Yes. Thank you.

We were speaking earlier about the onus being on the service member to come forward, or whether they will be contacted if there's been a record of trends from different exposures creating different illnesses amongst members who have been at different sites. Can you comment on that, please?

[Steven Harris]

The record of exposure that I think is being referred to here is done, and would be done, through the Canadian Armed Forces national defence department in terms of reaching out and contacting people who may have been in an affected area. Veterans Affairs does not proactively reach out to the veteran community on potential exposures or on the identification of potential exposures. We do reach out from a communications point of view, writ large, to encourage people to come forward. If they feel as though they have an illness or an injury related to their service, we regularly encourage them to come forward. That could be certainly related to exposure, or it could be related to many other things.

I would suggest that the vast increase in the number of applications we've seen indicates that veterans are aware that they can come forward and apply at any period in time and are actually going ahead and doing so.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Ms. Lapointe, you have five minutes.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

I will let the panel decide who is best to answer the questions I'll be asking.

Can you provide an overview of how Veterans Affairs Canada assesses the extent to which a Canadian Armed Forces member may have been exposed to chemical hazards during their service? As well, are there specific sites or types of deployments that are of particular concern to Veterans Affairs?