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.