Good day, Mr. Marchand.
First off, I apologize for my tardiness.
This is not the first time that we've spoken, sir. As you know, I'm not a big fan of the review and appeals process. What bothers me the most about it is how you go about selecting the people who will oversee the process and the appearance—and I emphasize the word appearance—of a conflict of interest among lawyers called upon to defend a veteran. Ms. Guarnieri has just touched upon that subject.
Counsel for the veteran is paid by the department. He comes under your responsibility and that bothers me. Let me tell you about one case in particular, that of Mr. Armand Pilon. I'm sure you've heard speak about that incident. I found it truly disgraceful that after contacting the lawyer who defended Mr. Pilon before your Board, he called me to tell me to close the books on this matter.
How could this lawyer be the person representing the veteran before the VRAB, and at the same time, be the person making a case against him to me? That's quite a dilemma. Moreover, Mr. Marchand, the veteran in this case was not given any benefit of the doubt. Mr. Pilon and his wife testified before the Board. All Board members said they believed Mr. Pilon, but that didn't change the decision, namely that Mr. Pilon was not entitled to any compensation.
I mention Mr. Pilon's case in particular, but I know of many others. I'm curious to get your reaction because this case niggles me. I would suggest that we offer this veteran a lump sum amount or a certain number of hours so that he can have his own lawyer, just as if he were presenting his case in a real court of law.