Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
I've read your brief many times, and you talked to me about it a little, but I still have a hard time understanding why the medical corps has an ethical problem with putting on paper that the injuries are related to the service.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
You said the diagnosis of the PTSD you are suffering from was not accepted by the ministry?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Okay. Yes, of course.
Mr. Eldaoud, I would like to go back to the medical reports, the CF 98 form, and the surgeon general.
I have also met with Ombudsman Walbourne. I understand that you really want to protect the doctors' privilege to provide a diagnosis. Their role is to provide care, not to be part of the decision to grant benefits or not. However, your ombudsman seems to tell us that, despite that, we have to do things differently.
At the moment, when the surgeon general makes a diagnosis, even though he is very aware that a knee injury happened in Kandahar on such-and-such a date, for example, he does not put that on the CF 98 form, the medical report. Am I right on that?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
I would say it's perfect. Thank you.
Is it right to say that the transition is easier for physical injuries than for mental health injuries, or not necessarily?
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gentlemen, thank you for being here with us today. We appreciate it very much.
My first question will be addressed to the representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion and to those of the Equitas group.
I think we can agree that there is a big issue with regard to information-sharing between the Department of National Defence and Veterans Affairs. It is very unfortunate for veterans who must face this difficulty alone when they have to prove that their physical or mental injuries are due to their military service.
I have often asked this question in committee and I would like to put it to you as well. I was told on several occasions that in the United States the veteran's burden of proof, that is to say having to prove that the injuries are service-related, rests with the department responsible for veterans. And so there, it is the department of veterans affairs that has to determine whether the veteran's injuries are service-related or not. If we functioned like that in Canada as well, am I correct in thinking that the veteran would not have to work to transmit the information, but the department, with all the means at its disposal, would work to go and get that information?
I yield the floor to you.
View Alupa Clarke Profile
CPC (QC)
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for joining us today.
Veteran Affairs Canada's mental health action plan called for quarterly meetings to be held between Veterans Affairs Canada and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board. Two weeks ago, I went to the Veterans Review and Appeal Board, in Quebec City, to find out what kind of cases came before the board. Of course, I did not look into any specific cases.
I saw that one of the issues that came up the most frequently was a lack of access to medical expertise. In many instances, for a case to have a positive outcome, the individual had to provide expert medical evidence. However, some of those individuals said many times to the judge that they had gone to numerous places, be it in New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec or even as far as Winnipeg, without being able to obtain expert medical evidence.
Can you talk to us about this problematic situation?
Results: 1 - 11 of 11