Mr. Chairman, I would be only too pleased to.
What I would say is too prevalent in the “benefit of the doubt” as it's interpreted by the department and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board is that it's too legalistic. And when the only tool you have in the drawer is a hammer, you tend to make the work fit the hammer. As for the lawyers and their definition, I found it striking that it was much more akin to balance of probabilities, although it doesn't say so much, than it is to the letter of the law and of course the interpretation that exists in here.
I'll say two things.
First of all, when I first read their interpretation, I saw that what is missing is the definition of “inference”, although there's all sorts of talk around the subject. But I had a young summer student do an academic investigation and a paper into the definition of “inference”, and it came back conclusively from numerous sources, fully attributed, that an inference is not a measure of truthfulness, it is a measure of sound logic and reasoning. In fact, it could be incorrect or not truthful.
The second piece is that there's no definition of what a “doubt” is. I've gone to great lengths to include that in my paper, because as we know, in criminal courts and in fact in civil litigation, lawyers will go to great lengths to try to create that doubt. When we ask adjudicators for their definition of “benefit of the doubt”, they'll go, “Well, fifty-fifty, and then we'll give the benefit of the doubt”. That's not it at all.
As is pointed out in the Bible, if you will, or the Torah or the Koran, just so I don't insult any particular group, it makes very clear that the case should be judged based on the evidence that's presented in the absence of any contradictory evidence. Then, if it's reasonable to believe the claim of the individual—and I say “claim” in the literal sense—they should rule in favour of the applicant.
In fact, they say that the preponderance of evidence, as I use in my example in the final paragraph of the paper that I submitted to you, could indicate that there were alternative sources to a disability that refute the claim of the individual. But in paragraph 3 of the “benefit of the doubt”, they're very clear in saying that any doubt—any doubt—is to be resolved in favour of the claimant.
I don't know if that expresses it, sir.