CHAPTER IV
THE INJURED, RETIREES, AND VETERANS

INTRODUCTION

Pay and housing have a significant impact on the quality of life of military personnel and their families, but nothing is more important for the morale and effectiveness of a military force than the quality of the care given to the injured and the support provided to the families of persons killed or injured while on duty. Most members of the military will escape injury during their careers, but they want to be reassured that if something happens, they and their families will get help. Whether they leave the Forces after a full career or prematurely after a severe injury, they also expect to be treated well as veterans and retirees. These expectations are part of the bargain they make when they volunteer to serve in the military.

Canadians join the armed forces in order to serve their country and are ready to pay the ultimate sacrifice in order to defend its territorial integrity and to help preserve international peace. During two world wars and the Korean conflict, Parliament and the Canadian people sent our sons and daughters to foreign shores to participate in Allied efforts, but in peacetime, we have also contributed military personnel to United Nations and NATO peacekeeping operations. This is not the same as sending people to fight the enemy in a full-scale war, although in recent operations such as the one in the Medak Pocket, this distinction has not always been clear. Indeed, Canadian peacekeepers have often found themselves in the middle of dangerous situations, if not open conflict, and the price has been high. Since the end of the Second World War, over 100 Canadians have died and many have been injured while carrying out peacekeeping duties. The death of Corporal James Ogilvie, at the end of August, the fifteenth Canadian soldier to die during peacekeeping duties in the former Yugoslavia, and that of Sapper Gilles Desmarais, in September, the sixteenth, demonstrate the ever-present dangers. However, many others have died or suffered injuries in Canada and abroad while training for peacekeeping operations or to maintain other military skills. While not as high as in wartime, the casualty rate of our peacetime military, notably during the peacekeeping operations of the 1990s, is by no means negligible. Indeed, the injured include individuals who have to deal with the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and many other types of stress as well as those who suffered physical wounds. Those with psychological injuries require as much care and especially understanding to recover as those injured physically.

Thus, it is all the more disturbing that our military has had so much difficulty dealing properly with the requirements of the injured and those of the families of individuals killed or injured while on duty. The statements made to the Committee by injured personnel like Major Henwood and by those who saw their friends and comrades killed or injured in action revealed a feeling of having been abandoned if not betrayed. It is quite clear from the testimony and news reports that some of the families of individuals who were injured or killed also gained the impression that the military was uncaring and indifferent to their concerns. Military culture may explain to some extent the awkwardness and insensitivity the Forces have demonstrated in the past in these matters. The aim of much of the training and discipline associated with military service is to ensure that in combat, military personnel will carry out their missions regardless of the intensity of enemy fire and the injuries suffered by comrades beside them. However, some have forgotten that there is still room for compassion in such an environment and that it is in fact an essential component.

THE NEED TO CHANGE ATTITUDES

Indeed, one of the most important elements contributing to the morale of a modern military unit is the knowledge that the wounded will be taken care of and that the families of the dead and injured will be supported. Morale in the Canadian Forces will never be completely restored if confidence in the organization's ability to care for the injured and to support the family members of individuals killed or injured is not rebuilt. This was clearly understood by the Forces which did not wait for the Committee to finish this study before undertaking its own investigation. The issue is such an important one that we can only welcome the Department's haste in reviewing its policies and practices.

The process actually started in the spring of 1997 when the Committee first began to examine quality of life issues. Some of the questions raised at the first meetings played a role in alerting the Department to the problem. However, the main catalyst was a series of news reports concerning the disappointment if not anger of injured personnel and their families in the face of the Department's apparent indifference to their situation. Whether it was normal procedure or the result of misunderstandings, the delivery through the mail of medals earned by persons killed or injured in action confirmed in the eyes of many family members and others the military's insensitivity in such situations. Amid growing concerns about the shortcomings demonstrated by the Forces, the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff ordered the establishment of the Care of Injured Personnel and their Families Review which produced a report known as the McLellan report in September 1997. The report was made public in early 1998.

As part of its study, the review team contacted serving and former members of the Forces who had been injured as well as the families of persons killed or injured. Many of the case studies in the report confirmed the impression that the Department had lost touch with the realities faced by injured personnel and by the families. The fact that the team had difficulty identifying all the persons injured in recent years because of incomplete departmental records reinforced this sentiment. We gained our own impression of the Department's handling of the issue during our visits to bases where injured personnel or their families told us what they had lived through and, in some cases, what they are still dealing with. Like the participants in the departmental review, these individuals shared personal information when they appeared before the Committee or sent written submissions and we gratefully acknowledge their contributions to the efforts to change attitudes and establish better policies.

Both during the departmental review and testimony before the Committee, it became quite clear that one of the major problems faced by the injured and retirees is obtaining information relevant to their cases. Pension information is complex at the best of times and can be difficult to obtain even when individuals have time to prepare carefully. When individuals suffered disabling injuries which forced retirement in mid-career, they were suddenly thrust into the complicated world of disability pensions as well as retirement benefits. Their lives were turned upside down, but when they asked the Department for help, they had to obtain information in bits and pieces from various directorates and agencies and found no single office or individual to guide them. Indeed, they had to deal with not only the Department of National Defence, but also the Department of Veterans Affairs which despite the experience gained dealing with the veterans of the world wars, had surprisingly neglected its lines of communications with the military.

The Department of National Defence tried to rectify the situation even before its review team produced its report by establishing in April 1997 the Disability Compensation Information/Advisory Cell to create a central body within the Department to provide information or at least refer individuals to the right offices. When the review team completed its report, one of its major recommendations was the reconfiguration of the Disability Compensation Information/Advisory Cell to ensure a central or one-stop answering and advocacy service for pension entitlements and the concerns of the injured, the families, and the survivors of personnel killed in action. The Department is currently proceeding with the establishment of what will be known as the Combined Centre for the Support of Injured, Retired, Veterans, and their Families (CCSIRV). The McLellan report called for the new organization to be proactive and to be staffed with personnel from the Canadian Forces, the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. It also mentioned that the organization will be linked with veterans groups such as the Royal Canadian Legion.

The Committee fully supports this and related recommendations of the McLellan report because the necessity of a central body which can provide information quickly and effectively to the injured, their families, and the survivors of members killed in action is beyond doubt. It is now important to ensure that the organization is put in place as quickly as possible and that all military personnel and their families are made aware of its services. We therefore recommend:

42. That the Combined Centre for the Support of Injured, Retirees, Veterans, and their Families be established as quickly as possible and have all the resources required to fulfil its mandate and to inform all military personnel and their families of the availability of its services.

Establishing a central information cell on disability and other pension benefits is a major step, but a structural measure by itself does not completely resolve a problem. The fact that the importance of having a central cell to help the injured and that the needs of the families in such situations took some time to be recognized suggests an attitudinal problem. The number of individuals injured during the increased tempo of peacekeeping operations perhaps underlined the need for better care of the injured, but the procedures should already have been in place. As we heard, the injured do not make outrageous demands, but simply expect a minimum of attention to their situation. Measures which should have been obvious like a hospital visit by the commanding officer shortly after someone has been injured or a telephone call informing family members of the arrival time of a military flight with an injured person on board often did not occur or only much later than they should have. These incidents demonstrated a lack of leadership and we attach considerable importance to the recommendations in the McLellan report concerning the need for training on the care of injured in leadership schools and academies and for refresher training for leaders every three years. With this in mind, we recommend:

43. That the recommendations of the McLellan report concerning the training of leaders on care of injured issues be implemented as quickly as possible and that other measures be taken to inculcate leaders on the importance of caring leadership. A report should be made to SCONDVA on an annual basis.

However, it may be necessary to ensure the right attitude towards the injured not only among the leaders, but also among every member of the military community. As the McLellan report states in paragraph 172, nothing was more detrimental to the chances for recovery of the injured and their feeling of self-worth than to be given the impression by their leaders and fellow members of being "damaged goods" no longer of any value to the military. Military personnel are very fit individuals who are dedicated to their task, so when they suffer debilitating injuries or develop a medical condition, they have to deal with not only the realization that their physical abilities have been reduced, but also the fact that their military career has come to a sudden end. This is even more difficult to do if the military they served so well appears to be indifferent to their plight and shunts them off to retirement or simply releases them. Efforts should be made to retain where possible injured military personnel who may have some limitations, but who because of their skills and experience, can still make a valuable contribution to the Forces.

Of course, certain realities must be faced, for in some circumstances it may simply not be possible to allow individuals to remain in the military. The reduction in the total number of personnel in the Canadian Forces since the end of the Cold War has limited the possibilities of keeping many of the injured. When the Forces had over 100,000 personnel, some positions could be filled by injured personnel without too much difficulty. Today, however, the Regular Force is slated to go down to 60,000 personnel by 1999 as directed by the 1994 White Paper on Defence and with such a small force, every position counts. In keeping with the Department's universality principle, all members of the military must meet the high standards set for the physical fitness and stamina required to perform combat duties and individuals who no longer do so must leave the Forces. This principle means release from the military not only for personnel who are seriously incapacitated because of an injury suffered in an accident or military operation, but also for those who develop a medical condition which over time, reduces their ability to fulfil their military duties.

However, someone who is released from the military because of an injury or a medical condition can still work in the civilian sector and enjoy a rewarding career. Like other Canadians with disabilities, injured individuals released from the military may have to contend with the prejudices of some potential employers and, as a result, may experience delays in finding employment. There are notable exceptions such as Computing Devices of Canada which makes it a point to hire former military personnel, especially those who must leave the Forces because of the serious nature of their injuries. Such companies recognize that injured military personnel have experience and a variety of skills which can be put to good use in private industry. Another example is the Canadian Corps of Commissionaires which already has a mandate of hiring former members of the Forces and could offer more job opportunities to the injured and other personnel as it contemplates providing other types of services to private as well as public corporations. When someone in the military is injured and faces a sudden change of career, it would be reassuring, and therefore beneficial to their recovery, to know that corporations interested in the skills and experience offered by military personnel have been identified and can be easily contacted. Thus, while reinforcing links with companies which already recognize the importance of offering job opportunities to the injured, the Department should undertake efforts to make other companies more aware of the situation and to encourage them to consider the skills and experience such personnel can offer in their talent searches. With this in mind, we recommend:

44. That programs be developed to make public and private sector corporations more aware of the skills and experience offered by individuals leaving the Forces and to help facilitate their hiring of personnel who must end their military careers prematurely because of serious injuries or illness.

Such programs should be especially helpful to individuals in their twenties and thirties with young families who cannot pursue their chosen career because of a disabling injury and suddenly face financial insecurity unless they can quickly find a new job. However, National Defence should not rely just on these programs to help the injured find employment. The Department should also do more to prepare individuals for another career and their return to civilian life before they are actually released from the military. At present, rehabilitation training can only start once individuals have left the Forces, but the process should really start as soon as they have recovered sufficiently to start taking training. At present, many individuals stay a number of months in the Forces after an injury before all the bureaucratic paperwork for release is completed and it does not make sense for them to get rehabilitation training only upon release. We therefore recommend:

45. That rehabilitation training of their choosing for injured members of the Canadian Forces start six or more months before their release from the military.

PROVIDING CARE AND INFORMATION

As well as rehabilitation training, the Forces offer a number of other programs to the injured and other personnel leaving the military to help them prepare their return to civilian life. However, the Forces cannot abandon its former members and must help them deal with injuries which may be directly or indirectly linked to their military service. For example, the most perplexing issue raised during our study was the situation faced by former and serving members of the Forces who saw service in the Persian Gulf area during the 1990-1991 conflict and who are now dealing with serious illnesses. The term Gulf War Syndrome has been used in Canada and abroad to describe the illnesses these individuals are suffering, although the use of this term is part of the major controversy around this issue on the causes and the consequences of these illnesses. The fact remains that at a number of our public meetings and in written submissions, a number of individuals who served in the Persian Gulf area described the serious health problems they have been dealing with ever since. These individuals are caught in the whole controversy surrounding the causes of these illnesses which some experts associate with exposure to chemical warfare agents or certain types of vaccines, while others dispute the claims. Medical and other experts in the United States and the United Kingdom as well as in Canada are continuing to study the health problems suffered by military personnel who served in the Persian Gulf during the conflict. Recent reports by a committee of the U.S. Senate and by the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta are the latest major studies of the issue, but these findings have by no means ended the debate.

The fact remains that a number of individuals are dealing with severe medical problems in the wake of their service in the Persian Gulf War and they and their families are also grappling with all the consequences of the abrupt ending of military careers on their financial stability. The Committee is not in a position at this time to add anything significant to the debate on the causes of the illnesses associated with the term Gulf War Syndrome. However, we are concerned about the situation many former members of the Forces find themselves in today, especially the difficulty they face getting help. During our visits to bases, we found out about a number of cases of people dealing with serious illnesses since the Gulf War period who felt abandoned while facing the complex world of disability pensions. These individuals had to rely on the help of members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other groups who went out of their way to try to untangle the bureaucratic obstacles and obtain assistance and treatment. Nothing better illustrates the failure of the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs to deal in a focused and compassionate fashion with the needs and problems of the injured than the way in which they dealt with individuals who served in the Persian Gulf conflict and who are now grappling with severe illnesses. Our recommendations as well as measures already undertaken by the Departments will hopefully improve significantly the way the problems of the injured are dealt with. However, individuals who are grappling with the types of illnesses which have as a common link service in the Gulf War need some additional help to deal with the disability pension process and to obtain information in general. National Defence and Veterans Affairs have already undertaken a number of studies on this issue and the need for a central body to provide information and assistance has been recognized. However, the Committee believes that even greater priority must be given to the establishment of a centralized and focused body, so we recommend:

46. That the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs establish a single and easy to access source of assistance, research, and information to individuals suffering severe and debilitating illnesses since their service during the Persian Gulf War.

Whatever the reasons for the problems faced by individuals who served during the Persian Gulf conflict, the fact remains that during the course of their military careers, all personnel can be exposed to a wide variety of situations which can result in injuries or illnesses. Health standards in some areas of the world where Canadian military personnel serve are not as high as the ones we enjoy in this continent and the problems are often exacerbated in the aftermath of conflicts. Personnel have expressed to us their concerns about their exposure to toxic materials while carrying out their duties in various troublespots. The effects of such exposure can be felt only many years later and to facilitate the pension process as well as to ensure correct treatment, complete documentation is required. Given the wide variety of chemical matters personnel may encounter while carrying out their duties, procedures should be in place to ensure that exposure to recognized toxic materials be duly noted. We therefore recommend:

47. That guidelines be established to ensure that exposure by personnel to recognized toxic materials during military operations is properly documented.

The effects of exposure to toxic materials are often difficult to detect and it can take time to recognize the link between an incident in the past and an illness an individual is grappling with today. The effects of stress on the physical and psychological well-being of an individual are also difficult to diagnose. People who come into contact with the individual do not always understand the relationship between the stress experienced during an incident during a military operation and the effects on behaviour and attitudes over the years. Even the individuals affected often have difficulty identifying the source of their problems and coming to grips with them. Nevertheless, they are injured like people who suffer a physical wound and need time and care to recover properly. The difficulty military forces, Canadian and otherwise, have had in dealing with personnel grappling with the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other types of stress have been well-documented elsewhere. Considerable progress has been made since the early years of this century when people dealing with PTSD were executed for desertion or cowardice, but the effects of PTSD and other types of stress are still not always understood and accepted. Although the Canadian Forces have made considerable efforts in recent years to provide assistance to people dealing with the effects of PTSD and other types of stress, we believe that the importance of the various programs involved in these efforts should be reaffirmed. The process of educating people on how to deal with individuals grappling with the effects of stress must also be reinforced.

The Canadian Forces have developed considerable expertise in helping peacekeepers deal with the effects of PTSD. In fact, they can also help members of the RCMP and other civilian police forces who have participated in quite a number of peacekeeping operations in recent years. However, there is always room for improvement and contacts with other centres of expertise should be pursued. Since the effects of stress can take years to be clearly diagnosed, there is always a danger that the needs for such programs will be downplayed, especially when other needs are competing for limited resources. For now, the need is recognized and it is reassuring to know that counsellors are available to help individuals as soon as possible when difficult situations arise, as was the case when military personnel participated in the recovery of bodies and debris following the tragic Swissair accident off the coast of Nova Scotia. Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize how valuable these programs are to ensure that they will still be in place whenever they are needed in future, so we recommend:

48. That the importance of programs to assist individuals dealing with the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and other types of stress be reaffirmed and that their funding be reinforced.

Despite the reassurances given by departmental officials, we are also concerned about the availability of PTSD programs to the numerous Reservists who participated in various peacekeeping operations in recent years. Many Reservists have accompanied Regular Force units deployed for peacekeeping operations, but when the units return to their base in Canada, the Regular Force members have easy access to the services available on base. Meanwhile, Reservists return to their home which can be quite far from that or other bases and may not know who to turn to months and even years later when they must deal with the effects of PTSD. The fact that a number of Reservists leave the Reserves after a deployment overseas complicates the process of identifying the individuals needing assistance and determining how to provide it. Nevertheless, efforts must continue to keep in mind the needs of Reservists, so we recommend:

49. That the requirements of Reservists, especially those who have served on peacekeeping operations, for assistance in dealing with the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder and other types of stress be addressed as fully as possible.

Putting in place programs to assist individuals dealing with the effects of stress as well as to improve the care of those physically injured is a necessary step. However, it is also important to ensure that well-trained medical personnel are available to care for the injured and to direct them to the specialized care they may need to deal with stress or the effects of physical injuries. During our visits to bases, we became aware of the problems faced by the Canadian Forces Medical and Dental Systems in recruiting and retaining qualified medical personnel. The growing shortage of military doctors affects both the situation at military bases across Canada and the operations abroad. Some of the issues raised by the injured who communicated their views to the team preparing the McLellan report include the fact that when injured during an operation overseas, they often spent some time in hospitals in foreign countries where they received little attention from Canadian medical and military staff. In our visits throughout Canada, personnel and their families expressed their concerns about recent changes in the medical services offered on bases and the growing shortage of doctors. The aim of the recommendations in the McLellan report and our own is to improve the care of the injured and reassure personnel, their families, and ultimately the Canadian public, that members of the Forces will be cared for attentively and with compassion if they are injured. These efforts could be undermined if the Canadian Forces Medical and Dental Systems are significantly weakened because of difficulty in recruiting and retaining doctors. With this in mind, we recommend:

50. That the re-engineering of the Canadian Forces Medical and Dental Systems be reviewed to ensure that future requirements will be met. Attention should also be paid to the medical requirements of military families and the problems they encounter with respect to medical insurance coverage when they move from one province to another.

IMPROVING PROCEDURES

While some personnel may suffer severe injuries or illnesses which effectively end their military careers, others with less severe injuries or illnesses can usually return to their units after a short recovery. They receive proper care and their injury or illness is properly documented. However, during our study, we became aware of unfortunate situations where some individuals with medical problems or slightly injured were afraid to consult doctors because they believed that this would quickly lead to their release from the military. Since the Forces were downsizing, they were concerned that any indication of a medical condition would mean losing their jobs and careers. It was suggested that some individuals suffered injuries while performing their duties, but kept this secret, thereby running the risk in later years of not only having to deal with a worsening medical condition, but also being unable to provide proper documentation of their injuries if they apply for a disability pension. This climate of fear is bad for both the individuals and the Forces as a whole. The individuals may find their health getting worse and worse because they are not getting proper care while the Forces end up with personnel who may not be as effective as expected in operational situations. Individuals should be able to report injuries when they occur without fear of other consequences so that they can obtain proper care. By the same token, leaders must have clear guidelines on when to use the CF98 administrative forms used to report injuries so that there can be complete documentation available for inquiries into accident, medical records, and, in later years, applications for disability pensions or other assistance. In some cases, leaders have not properly filled out CF98 forms or have not even used them when they should have. In fact, there have been a number of cases in recent years where individuals have been killed or seriously injured, but where the investigations have been hampered by a lack of documentation or misunderstandings of procedures. The Forces have improved procedures in these kinds of incidents in light of lessons learned, but the whole injury reporting process must be clear to leaders and personnel alike to ensure that injuries are properly reported and, where necessary, investigated. We therefore recommend:

51. That the policies governing the reporting of injuries and medical conditions be reviewed to ensure that leaders and personnel in general clearly understand the procedures and apply them in a consistent manner.

While some injured personnel will be able to remain in the Forces after recovering from their injuries, others will have to leave because of the serious nature of their injuries or illnesses. When this happens, individuals face a variety of circumstances depending on whether they have many years of service or have seen a promising career come to an early and sudden end. However, all of them have to grapple with the complexity of the disability pension application process which has caused much concern in recent years. Injured members of the Canadian Forces, just like the veterans of the two world wars and the Korean conflict, have to deal with the Department of Veterans Affairs which administers the Pension Act. Applications for disability pensions are considered by Veterans Affairs and appeals or requests for more benefits are considered by the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, an independent quasi-judicial agency within that Department. Despite some improvements in recent years, the process is still a complex one and has left many injured CF members frustrated.

The trauma of a sudden disabling injury was often exacerbated by the necessity of quickly learning the requirements and procedures for applying for a disability pension. In some cases, spouses or other family members of badly injured individuals had to deal with what one witness described as a minefield of red tape, often obtaining key information only months after making the application because of bureaucratic oversights. The central information cell established by National Defence in cooperation with Veterans Affairs will help resolve some of the problems faced by people trying to find information. However, there are still many questions to resolve with regard to the timely transfer of medical and personal records. Some individuals had complete records with properly filled out CF98 forms and other documents, but still faced considerable delays in getting answers about their situations because of the time necessary to transfer personnel files from National Defence to Veterans Affairs.

The review of files by Veterans Affairs to determine eligibility for disability pensions inevitably takes some time, but it is understandably frustrating for anyone to experience long periods of uncertainty simply because of bureaucratic delays in physically transferring files from one point to another. It is especially bothersome for people who have suffered a disabling injury and suddenly face upheavals in their careers and financial situation. In the coming years, more and more records will be available in electronic format and it should be easy to transfer them from one department to another, but it will take many years to develop and perfect such a system. Measures are needed now to ensure the timely transfer of medical and other records between National Defence and Veterans Affairs. Other sources of records such as the National Archives should also be involved in discussions so that personnel files can be made available quickly for pension or other reasons. Thus, we recommend:

52. That the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs together with other agencies develop streamlined procedures to ensure quick and effective transfer of all relevant records of personnel leaving the Forces. A report on the progress achieved should be made to SCONDVA within a year.

Another issue related to personnel and medical records raised during our study was their availability to the individuals themselves. Some experienced long delays in obtaining them and gained the impression that they would not be made available to them. We have been assured that personnel do have access to their medical files, but that there are requirements under privacy legislation to remove references to third party comments. As a result, there can be significant delays in processing the files prior to sending them to the individuals, especially when National Defence and other agencies are already dealing with other demands with limited resources. Nevertheless, the process making files available to the individuals involved must be expedited.

While the number and complexity of the documents required to determine eligibility for and the extent of the pension to be awarded can often be bewildering, nothing created more frustration for the injured and their families than the need for Veterans Affairs and other agencies to use their own medical examiners even though National Defence doctors had produced full medical records. As we heard in Trenton and other places, some injured personnel already examined by military doctors, may need the assistance of family members or friends to go to the medical appointments that are part of their recovery. Thus, having to see as well other doctors just to satisfy the requirements of Veterans Affairs or those of the Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP) appears to be superfluous and an unnecessary burden on the patients and their families. We agree and welcome the efforts being made by Veterans Affairs to use National Defence medical records rather than requiring additional medical examinations. To ensure that progress continues in this vein, we recommend:

53. That the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs and other agencies change their procedures to minimize the duplication of medical examinations and other requirements during the processing of disability pension applications. A report should be made to SCONDVA within a year.

Of course, eliminating the duplication of medical examinations at the departmental level does not limit the ability of individuals in the military to obtain another medical opinion if they consider this necessary. At present, individuals can consult other military doctors or civilian ones if they wish to get another opinion on their diagnosis. We understand that when the consultations for a second opinion are with civilian doctors, the Department covers the costs.

Accelerating the transfer of medical files and eliminating the duplication of medical examinations will not help individuals a great deal if their disability pension application still faces long delays while being processed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This Committee was involved a few years ago in the legislative process which led to the establishment of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, a measure designed to, among other things, speed up the processing of pension applications and appeals from veterans of the two world wars and the Korean conflict. The Department has since reported significant progress in cutting the time required to answer an application to about 6 months compared to some 18 in the past. While recognizing the progress made, we believe that it is important to shorten as much as possible the time necessary to process applications. While the veterans of the two world wars and the Korean conflict deserve a quick response, so do military personnel who must end their careers early because of injury. Thus, we recommend:

54. That the Department of Veterans Affairs pursue its vigorous actions to reduce as much as possible the time necessary to process disability pension applications and appeals. A report should be made to SCONDVA on an annual basis.

As well as speeding up the processing of disability pension applications, Veterans Affairs should also change some of the criteria under which these applications are considered. Under the Pension Act administered by Veterans Affairs, eligibility for a disability pension and the extent of payments may vary depending on the circumstances in which the injuries occurred. In many cases, the injured or their families must provide Veterans Affairs with evidence that an injury or disease which led to a disability or death is directly linked to military service. Benefits are determined under the Pension Act according to what is called the compensation principle. The situation is different for personnel deployed outside Canada to participate in peacekeeping and other multinational operations such as those during the Persian Gulf War. Almost all peacekeeping operations since 1949 and all other overseas operations have been declared Special Duty Areas. In such cases, pension benefits are determined according to the insurance principle. In other words, a disability or death resulting from service in a Special Duty Area is pensionable whether or not the cause is directly linked to military service. The insurance principle would be applied in the case of a peacekeeper injured this year in a Special Duty Area, just as it was for anyone who served in a designated theatre of operations during the Second World War. In short, just being in a Special Duty Area can mean pensionable benefits in case of injury, regardless of the circumstances, while under the compensation principle, the link between the injury and carrying out military duties must be established.

Given the risks faced by personnel in foreign countries during operations, whether they are travelling from one location to another or taking cover during an artillery barrage, there is no question that the insurance principle should be applied in Special Duty Areas. Canadians remember those who have died overseas during peacekeeping operations, but those who have suffered serious and often career-ending injuries in such operations and who need disability pension benefits must not be forgotten. Nevertheless, during our study, we became aware of the concerns of a number of personnel who often risk major injury while on duty within Canada, but who cannot get the same level of pension benefits as someone serving in a Special Duty Area overseas. While recognizing the risks involved in operations overseas, it was pointed out that deployments within the country such as those to assist Canadian authorities deal with ice storms and other emergencies involve hazardous situations which have resulted in injuries in recent years. Military personnel have always demonstrated an unflinching readiness to help Canadians deal with emergency situations, but they should not be in a disadvantageous situation if they suffer an injury during a deployment in Canada rather than in a Special Duty Area overseas. In recognition of the risks personnel face while on duty within Canada as well as overseas, we recommend:

55. That legislation be amended so that deployments within Canada to deal with national and regional emergencies be designated as Special Duty Areas for disability pension purposes. Measures should also be taken to ensure that personnel who suffer major injuries while on duty in Canada have access to disability pension benefits.

Broadening the definition of Special Duty Area to include major operations in Canada still leaves room for all personnel who have seen duty in Canada and in peacekeeping and other operations overseas to get some extra recognition for the many months spent away from home in sometimes very dangerous and difficult conditions. Quite a number of military personnel we met during our visits to the bases mentioned the fact that despite their many tours of duty in Bosnia and other world troublespots, they are not recognized as veterans. Our veterans from the two world wars and the Korean conflict richly deserve the recognition the term veteran gives them in the eye of the public as well as in pension legislation. However, some have noted that in recent years, many members of the Canadian Forces have spent almost as many months and years overseas in regions still in the grips of a conflict or barely out of them, as many of our veterans of the two world wars and Korea. Yet, when they return to Canada, they find a population enjoying peace and sometimes blissfully unaware of the risks military personnel have faced and the sacrifices they have made. This is quite different from the welcome and subsequent recognition most veterans of the two world wars and the Korean conflict have received. However, personnel who have served in Special Duty Areas should also be considered veterans since they have served their country well and have contributed to preserving national security and international peace. Many individuals have served far away from home for long periods of time in social and environmental conditions quite different from those in our country. Veteran status would be recognition that they have carried out their duties in circumstances similar to those faced by veterans of the two world wars and the Korean conflict. We therefore recommend:

56. That military personnel who have served in Special Duty Areas be recognized as veterans.

Since many Reservists have served in Special Duty Areas overseas, this recognition should apply to them as well. However, in military and training operations in Canada, Reservists often carry out the same duties as Regular Force personnel and face the same dangers. We have already indicated our concerns about the availability to Reservists of programs helping personnel deal with the effects of various types of stress, but we also have some concerns about the extent to which care and information is available to injured Reservists. The problems faced by Reservists were examined in the McLellan report which, among other things, suggested that both Reservists and Regular Force personnel do not always clearly understand what disability compensation and other benefits are available to Reservists. This can result in delays in processing applications for benefits and create unnecessary frustrations for Reservists. If they suffer injuries sometime in the future, Reservists as well as Regular Force personnel must not face the same bad experiences as the injured personnel mentioned in the McLellan report. We therefore recommend:

57. That programs be developed to better inform military personnel on disability compensation and other benefit entitlements for Reserve Force members. SCONDVA should receive a report on this on an annual basis.