National Defence Committee on Dec. 3rd, 2024

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

I'm just thinking about a process whereby a veteran comes in and makes a claim for exposure, and there is a list of all the sites where he's been. The computer can then crunch the numbers and get some sort of relationship between them.

Is the onus on the former service member to come forward and say, “I heard there were some contaminated substances at sites X, Y and Z,” or is there a list of soldiers and members who worked at one of these sites, and we reach out to them?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's quite an interesting and detailed question, and I'd like to hear the answer, but he's way past the time. I'm sorry. Maybe there is some other way to work that back in.

I'm going to Madam Lambropoulos.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Harris and company, for being here with us today to answer some of our questions.

When I was first elected in 2017, I was on the veterans affairs committee. I remember at the time, there were a lot of challenges with benefits getting out to veterans. There were accessibility issues and a lack of knowledge of how to access services. One of the main issues I remember was the fact that it was very difficult for Veterans Affairs to be able to get access to medical records or any other kinds of records from the CAF related to the veteran's service.

I'm wondering if that has changed at all since then. How much more accessible is it now than it was back then, if at all?

[Steven Harris]

That is the application process. A veteran will submit a claim for a particular condition, perhaps with some supporting medical documentation. We will verify their service record to confirm whether or not they experienced, if we are taking the example of a physical injury, an accident whereby they hurt their shoulder or a specific accident whereby they may have hurt something, or whether there is what would be considered repetitive exposure to something. If you think of somebody who jumps out of an airplane regularly, they're probably going to have problems with their knees, ultimately, based on the impact they suffered from repeated exposure to that kind of thing. Those are the kinds of things we might be looking for in their service record.

To get back to the earlier question as well, because I think there is a chance to work in a bit of an answer to that one here, yes, we would see in a veteran's service record whether or not they were in an area that had some exposure or contaminants that have been identified. As part of the medical records, as the Canadian Armed Forces and DND officials testified earlier, there may already be things on their file that indicate there was exposure at a particular site where they were for either a short period of time or a long period of time. It could be a factor in looking at what their condition might be.

In terms of our being able to access information from the Canadian Armed Forces with respect to service records, it is much better. We are much faster. We had 22,500 files beyond our service standard, which is 16 weeks, in 2020. We're down to just about 6,000, so there's been a reduction of about 72% over the last number of years. We're making decisions for veterans much more quickly. That's thanks to being able to get information from the Canadian Armed Forces on service much more quickly as well.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Okay, thank you very much. That's good to hear.

You mentioned in your opening statement that they can come and ask for benefits for medical conditions caused by service or by any kind of illness or condition they may have that they feel was caused by their service. I guess it's through the application process that you would determine if it is, in fact, caused by their service. How do you go about making that kind of a decision? That's the question.

[Steven Harris]

I might just ask Mr. MacDougall if he'd weigh in on that one quickly.

[Shawn MacDougall]

Sure.

As Mr. Harris mentioned, veterans can apply for benefits for anything that they feel is related to their service. It's part of that application process. They state, to the best of their ability, how they feel the service caused that condition.

The first step in the process is that Veterans Affairs verifies with a medical professional that the veteran has a diagnosed medical condition, and that's an important step.

Second, we have Veterans Affairs trained adjudicators, often nurses, who review the service records to validate that something happened during service, such as an exposure, an injury or an illness, that is the cause of their current medical condition. Those nurses have access to available research housed by the department from partners, other nations, etc. They also have access to specifically trained physicians who evaluate the research and help them with advice if they so need it. The nurses, the trained adjudicators, ultimately render their decisions based on the evidence on the files and the best available science of the day.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you.

This is a bit odd to ask, but do you have a percentage of the cases that actually end up receiving the benefits? Clearly, if they're showing up with a condition that they believe has been caused by their service.... To some degree, they know better than anyone whether or not that would be the case. Do you have any stats on when those decisions rendered are in the favour of the veteran?

[Shawn MacDougall]

I do. For the 2023-24 fiscal year, 77% of our first applications were approved.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

Thank you very much.

You went over the process used to assess the physical and mental needs of a veteran. You spoke about the fact that, through their documents and any files that they have, you can see whether or not there were toxic substances that were on the grounds that they were training on, or anything like that. Has it ever happened where they didn't necessarily know of that at the time, so it wasn't recorded, yet people are coming back with a condition that they think may be connected to something during their service?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Answer very briefly.

[Steven Harris]

That does happen where exposure in terms of the contaminant being in a particular area is only identified after. Somebody can come back, even if there's a decision that there isn't enough evidence to support a particular approval in that case. There are appeals processes, as well, and there is the ability for somebody to come back with new information when more information on exposure is brought up or when new research comes forward on contaminants in an area.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Lambropoulos.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I thank the witnesses for being here.

I want to continue along the same lines as Ms. Lambropoulos's questions about limitation periods. First, are there limitation periods that mean that the case of a veteran with an occupational illness may not be heard by Veterans Affairs Canada?

If so, when does that start? Is it from the discovery of the disease, from the moment they learn that there has been exposure to a contaminant, from the moment they determine that a compound has a certain level of toxicity, or from the moment they discover the causal link between the exposure and the disease?

[Steven Harris]

Thank you very much for the question.

The time frame depends on the veteran's request. A veteran may have a service-related injury or illness. As we heard in the testimony in the first hour of this meeting, people who have been exposed to contaminants or other things during their military service may suffer immediate effects, but it can sometimes take five or 10 years before the disease occurs.

As soon as they say they have an illness or a health problem related to their military service, veterans can apply to Veterans Affairs Canada. The period for the department to make a decision is supposed to be 16 weeks. We had a hard time meeting that 16-week standard, but we have improved a lot. Currently, the average time to get a decision from the department is 19 weeks. In some cases, the time frame is shorter. In more complex cases, it can take a few extra weeks.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much, but my question was more about the limitation period. How long does a person have to submit an application before they are told that it is too late and that their application can no longer be heard? Is there such a limitation?

[Steven Harris]

I'm sorry. There's no limitation. They can apply after 10 years or after 30 years. If something has been determined in terms of a location or a geographic area, they can go to Veterans Affairs Canada at any time.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Along the same lines, can a case be reopened? For example, if a person receives a negative response because the department deems that their problems do not constitute an occupational disease or are not related to an exposure that occurred during their military service, but later it is discovered that that person may indeed have suffered negative effects as a result of a chemical compound, can their case be reopened with the same information as at the outset?

[Steven Harris]

If there have been new developments, new research or discoveries, it won't really be the same information we had at the outset. However, yes, the case can be reopened based on this new information.

It can also be reassessed. A person may have an illness whose effects have been assessed at a certain percentage, such as 5% or 10% of functional loss. After that, the illness may evolve and then have more serious effects on the veteran. In that case, the person can contact us again to ask us to review their case on the grounds that their health has deteriorated.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs has studied reproductive health, and I'd like to ask you about that.

Let's take the example of a veteran who experienced reproductive health problems during her military service. Let's suppose it is determined later that her problems may have been the result of exposure to a chemical compound that occurred during her military service, when she was younger and had not yet been released.

First, is this a type of case that you receive? Is reproductive health one of the issues you're studying or hearing about? Second, would the Department of Veterans Affairs be responsible for compensating this veteran, or rather the Department of National Defence, given that the negative effects would be experienced during service?

[Steven Harris]

If there was a negative impact during military service, the Canadian Armed Forces health services would certainly take care of that. However, if there is a long-term impact on a veteran's health, they can definitely contact Veterans Affairs Canada at any time to request compensation or support benefits. If adverse effects are discovered later, the affected individuals have the right to contact the department.

It is true that this is an issue that is being studied in detail now, not only at Veterans Affairs Canada, but also among our partners abroad and in the Canadian Armed Forces. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs conducted a comprehensive study on women veterans, to which the government has just responded. There's still a lot to be done on the research side, and we're working on that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I will ask for clarification a little later. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Mathyssen, you have six minutes.

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

I appreciate your coming before the committee today.

I'm a little concerned, and I would like some clarification. We just heard from DND officials who stated that they have a good list. They're very good at documenting all of their workplace hazards. They have that list. I think you said that you also have that list in hand, in terms of identifying the claims people are putting forward. You also said that you don't link the site contaminations or causes when you look at benefits to provide. For example, you might say, “They have cancer, so we'll treat that cancer.”

I feel a bit of a disconnect, because I also asked if there was a proactive role for DND to play, in terms of making it easier when veterans are coming forward, to identify where they've been working. Can you fill in the gaps around that? I'd love clarification.

[Steven Harris]

I think the clarification that I'd offer is this. The way the disability benefits program works is that we don't compensate for the actual exposure itself. We don't compensate for burn pits or for the fact that you worked at a contaminated site. We compensate for the illness that developed as a result of that.

The distinction is that what's recognized in the disability benefits program isn't that you worked at a site that was contaminated, but that, as a result of having worked at a site that was contaminated, you have respiratory problems, nerve problems or a particular cancer. That's the issue.

We do have access to the information that the Canadian Armed Forces referenced earlier, and all of that forms part of what would be the decision-making process to be able to link those things.