Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Madame Tining, you are very careful. You said that veterans, “if” they qualify, get benefits.
Here's a list of four names of people who did not qualify: Sarah Atwood, 90 years old, denied a bed at Camp Hill; Ted Shiner, 90 years old, denied VIP service; David Kurts, 87, two years fighting for various benefits, denied benefits; and Art Humphreys, before he died at 87, denied a lift for his home.
Those are four veterans of World War II and Korea who were denied benefits. They didn't qualify. There are literally thousands of veterans out there who do not qualify for benefits.
So to say that you're going to streamline the process and give them an answer quicker, in most veterans' ears, when they hear that, they're going to hear the answer “No” quicker than the other thing.
When I bring up cases to the minister in this regard, that they get a serious review by the minister, just like Steve Dornan's case in the Annapolis Valley did.
My question for Mr. Larlee is the following. Harold Leduc, one of your board members, said very clearly that in tracking favourable decisions, the board began measuring the number of times panel members were involved in decisions that came down on the side of former soldiers.
It says here:
The slicing and dicing of those statistics had far-reaching implications and is one of the tools board chair John Larlee and his deputy used to lean on members perceived as overly-generous, says long-standing member Harold Leduc.
He's a veteran and he serves on the veterans review board. These are pretty serious accusations he's made publicly, twice, in the media.
My question to you is, quite clearly, sir, is he true? Did you or any members of your board lean on people like Mr. Leduc in terms of his overgenerous decisions when it came to veterans' appeals? Or is Mr. Leduc wrong?