Veterans Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is the fifteenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

We have two separate witnesses. We'll have one in camera, and we have Francine Matteau, who we'll be hearing from first.

Madam Sgro, do you have a point that you wanted to make?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Yes. I have missed a couple of meetings. Where are we with the Agent Orange?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Well, in fact I was just going to go into that.

Because of a motion passed in the House, our meeting this Thursday is cancelled. President Calderon will be speaking in the House at that time. That will push everything back.

Right now at this point, the subjects we have are the consideration and of course the approval of our draft report, and then Bill C-473, and witnesses with that, of course. Then we will have the veterans' use of food banks and that will be taking up the rest of our calendar.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

So then it's still down as work to be done; we won't get it done now before June, but it will be taken up in the fall.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

It's on the broader list, yes, among other things. I'm certain we'll need to have a business meeting, probably the first meeting when we get back, and we will debate what the priorities will be.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Okay. That's fine. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

All right.

We will have Madame Matteau give her opening remarks.

I take it that you have some, Madame Matteau. Is that correct? Do you have opening remarks?

[Francine Matteau, As an Individual]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Then we'll go to a rotation. We'll go through a first round and we'll get as far through the second round as we can, so please govern yourselves accordingly as far as splitting your time is concerned. Then we'll have to go to Monsieur Leduc for the second hour.

Madame Matteau, please begin. After you've finished your opening remarks, we'll have a rotation of questions for you.

[Francine Matteau]

Good morning everyone.

My name is Francine Matteau, and I am the mother of Master Corporal Nicolas Magnan, who was wounded in combat in Kandahar on August 22, 2007. As a result of my son's accident, I realized exactly what happens to the new generation of veterans. I therefore decided to undertake this crusade, out of a desire to ensure that justice is done to all concerned. My testimony will be based on what I know.

Not everything in the new Charter is bad. However, taking away the monthly pension is a serious mistake. The pension was, and remains, the only way to ensure their financial security and well-deserved peace of mind. After many discussions with the management of Veterans Affairs Canada, the facts have confirmed for us that the new Charter was adopted too quickly, without assessing its full consequences. One of those consequences is that it helps to get rid of veterans in the relatively short term. Is that out of a desire to save money? Many indications suggest it is. Once they are released from the Canadian Forces, they no longer receive much assistance from Veterans Affairs Canada.

Our country decided to send our soldiers to war. Of course, we might have expected that there would be more wounded. Canada has to take its responsibilities and look after its veterans when they come back with physical or psychological disabilities, and it must continue to do so until the end of their lives.

In developing its new Charter, Canada took its inspiration from what has been done in two different countries, Great Britain and Australia. Those two countries ultimately reversed their decision following pressure from the military, families and the media. Great Britain now provides a lump sum amount of up to $855,000, plus a monthly pension. I am unaware of the figures for Australia.

I am not asking for as much as that. I realize that budgets must also be considered. However, the return of the monthly pension is a priority. It is also a question of fairness, of keeping one's word and of showing respect for those who have chosen a military career. When they joined, they were convinced that if they had the misfortune to be injured, their country would be there for them. But that is no longer the case. They feel humiliated, betrayed and rejected by the very people in whom they put their trust, which does not help them to get better physically and psychologically. They feel abandoned by the system.

Now I would like to address the lump sum amount. It is very simple; you do not give a large sum of money to someone who is psychologically unstable. They think about escaping, isolate themselves, abuse alcohol and drugs, go into debt, and when they receive their lump sum payment, they pay off their debts and are left with nothing. Ultimately, the families bear the brunt. They are discouraged. These men and women are human wrecks. During the mission, they are exposed to intense stress, 24 hours a day; they sleep very little and they live through and experience horrors on a daily basis. Nobody emerges undamaged from that kind of experience. Furthermore, in order to receive their lump sum payment, they have to fight tooth and nail when they no longer have the strength to do that, go from appeal to appeal, relive painful events, and all of this generally last for three years, and sometimes more.

That whole process only increases their aggressiveness, frustration and distress. They want to move on, but under these conditions, it is impossible. The maximum lump sum amount is $269,000 for the maximum benefit—in other words, 100%. Based on the Department's rate scales, many of them arrive at rates of 200% and 300%. So, $269,000 seems completely inadequate. In the case of my son, his legal counsel arrived at a benefit of 104%, without including post-traumatic stress disorder, for which he already received 25%. My son, Nicolas, is waiting to hear the date of his second appeal. The waiting time is almost three years.

For all these reasons, I want to emphasize the need to bring back the monthly pension. They are deeply scarred by their experiences for the rest of their lives. Some other examples will be provided.

Of course, with the proper follow-up, they are able to function pretty well normally, but the slightest problem or disappointment often takes them right back to square one.

I do hope that you already have, and will hear, from an expert on post-traumatic stress disorder. I am sure he could provide a great deal of valuable information about this very serious issue. It is also important to consider the fact that the older they get, the more these psychological and physical wounds are likely to cause a variety of health problems. At that point, they have the burden of proof.

Let us also talk about the impact on the family. It is not easy to support a spouse suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Just consider the myriad problems they are facing. Many of them also have children, as well as financial problems. How many more tragedies, divorces and suicides will there be? As you know, the third cause of death among military personnel is suicide.

I attended a meeting organized by the Ombudsman, Mr. Pat Strogan, at the Valcartier military base. That evening, I heard stories that completely overwhelmed me. A 40-year-old veteran was sobbing in front of the microphone, saying that he no longer had a cent to his name. That is one tragic story among many others.

I would now like to address the return to civilian life. Yes, they can go back to school and receive 75% of their salary during that period, and even obtain a college diploma. It is not so bad, if you consider there are fewer deductions; so, that is all right. The problem is that many of them do not have the prerequisites to secure a college level diploma. Will they be able to concentrate enough to study, particularly since they have not been in school for a very long time?

I know one person who was paid to attend a security guard course. In that job, he makes $15 an hour, or $27,000 a year, compared to the $50,000 he was earning as a member of the Canadian Forces.

Those who manage to complete a college diploma will have a salary of between $32,000 and $35,000 a year, whereas many of them were earning between $60,000 and $70,000 a year as members of the military. How can they keep their homes, pay for their children's education or for their extracurricular activities? That is a substantial loss of income. As the Ombudsman confirmed, many of them will end up living below the poverty line. I am sure you would agree that this is totally unacceptable. Who is responsible?

Another thing concerns me. What type of employees will they be? How many managers will be prepared to tolerate their mood swings and repeated absences because, some days, they just are not able to work? If they lose their jobs, they will have to justify it, but this system is not eternal. I am only describing the reality as it was described to me by the CF members I met with. They become antisocial, they want peace and quiet and cannot accept annoyances of any kind. In fact, that is the reason why many of them withdraw completely from society and live in isolation.

This system is not the slightest bit geared to their needs. How many of them will just give up? How many of them will put an end to their lives? We will surely find more veterans who become homeless people. Let us not forget that they remain very fragile. All these systems are very expensive to administer, not to mention the fact that they generate a great deal of frustration.

This is something that is urgently needed: give them back their monthly pension and let them live their lives as they see fit. I am sure you will agree that they have suffered enough.

I hope I have provided some useful information—that you were probably already aware of, and I hope it will help you understand just how critical it is to restore the monthly pension.

Given all the respect that we owe them, they do not deserve to be treated in this fashion. They served your country, their country. We have a duty to be there for them. Do not think that we are ready to accept that they be shunted aside just because they can no longer give 100%. These are not people who were injured at work or in a traffic accident because they were driving drunk at 150 kilometres an hour; these are individuals with a concern for the safety and security of their country.

The current system clearly shows that they are being penalized for having chosen a military career.

That completes my presentation. I am sure you have questions, and I will answer them based on what I know.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Matteau.

We will have a rotation of questions now.

We'll begin with the Liberal Party for seven minutes. Mr. Oliphant.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I just want to check: do you think we'll have two rounds?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

We may be able to make two rounds, depending on how tight we can keep those questions.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

If you could give me a signal after four or five minutes, I'll ask Ms. Sgro if she has anything she wants to add so that we both get in.

Thank you once again, Ms. Matteau, for your presentation; it was excellent.

I'm going to speak in English because that's easier for me, and you can hear me in French this time.

When we've brought up these cases several times to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, he's very fond of saying--he's said it three times in the House now--that when there's a lump sum payment, there is also monthly income that is given. He says this regularly and he says that we have not given up monthly income support. He doesn't seem to understand that it is a very limited monthly support in the transition fund. So when....

[Technical Difficulties]

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Excuse me for a moment. We have a technical problem.

Okay, we should be fine now. Forgive me, Mr. Oliphant. We'll start your time after you've had a chance to regroup.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

It seems to me that in my thinking what I'm leaning towards as the best solution is a lump sum payment for adaptation, for renovations of homes, and for expenses that are one-time expenses in nature, and then an ongoing disability pension that isn't just tied to getting back into the workforce, frankly, but is tied to the disability, which is for life.

Are you in agreement with me that there still should be a lump sum payment for renovating a house, or for those things you need to do, and then a forever ongoing monthly pension?

[Francine Matteau]

There is already a program in place that provides for adjustments to the home, for example. That might include building a ramp or widening doors so that a wheelchair could get through, and that sort of thing. There are also programs under which people who have been injured can obtain prosthetic devices for their shoes. It is also possible to have prostheses made, again at the expense of the Department.

With respect to the current lump sum payment, that payment is provided to people who have to live with their injuries. I agree with you that the amount is not very high. However, it is complex. If we give them twice as much, they will go crazy and spend it all. I really do not know what the best approach is. Right now they receive $269,000, which is indexed to the cost of living from year to year. I do not know whether that money could be paid out differently, but if they are given the entire amount when they are still fragile, I wonder what they will do with it. They will remain fragile for the rest of their lives, but they will get stronger over the years. In England, the lump sum amount is very high. I do not know whether their veterans behave the same way ours do. In any case, Valcartier medical staff have confirmed that they are penniless now. They are very very concerned about what will happen to these individuals, because none of them has any money left, or at least not much.

My son made some good investments. Of course, he was 32 years old, as opposed to 23 or 24, when it happened. If you give them $200,000 when they are 23 or 24 years of age, they have the impression that they have just won the lottery and they lose control. Because they are psychologically very fragile, they isolate themselves, they drink or, in some cases, spend all their money at the casino. They all have their own way of letting off steam, but they all end up with no money.

I do not know exactly what should be done about the lump sum payment, but the idea of giving them one large amount of money concerns me a little. There may be another way of handling this—for example, by paying them a certain amount every five years. I do not know. In any case, a large lump sum payment is certain to cause the same kinds of problems.

But we must not forget the monthly pension. Personally, that is what I would really like to see. The lump sum payment does not resolve any of the issues. Some young people are even going to their psychologist in tears. They do not exactly know my name, but they know that I am Nicolas Magnan's mother and that I have been asking for certain things. They do not know exactly what will come of this. They are grasping at any straw to try and find a way out. They are discouraged. They have no money. It is a living hell for them. It is very sad.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have less than two minutes.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

I would add that if the lump sum is meant to be invested to give a guaranteed income over a year, it doesn't work. I look at my own RSP portfolio, which took a big hit. It's not big because I had no money. Therefore, if I were depending on it to live and hoping to earn 4% to 5% per annum, it wouldn't exist. So it is not income replacement. It is neither fish nor fowl.

If we have other adaptation processes, that's good, and we need a monthly income that we take the liability for as a country.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you so much for coming, and thank you so much for caring about this issue.

Clearly, we're moving forward doing this review, which was always the intent when it was adopted. We knew it was not a perfect document. It was always meant to have a review to look at how we can make it better. The issue of the lump sum payment comes up a lot.

On the issue of re-employment, how did that work for your son when it came to opportunities for him to do something else in the military? Were there any retraining opportunities for him?

[Francine Matteau]

Well, the process has been somewhat delayed because Nicolas was on parental leave. He returned to work last Monday, on May 17. His wife is from Thailand and she wants to go back and live in Thailand. They are being offered a chance to go back to school. Nicolas has asked to learn Thai so that he can start up his own business there—he wants to learn to read, write and speak the language. He has not yet received an answer.

Very few people have gone back to school, it seems to me. Nicolas was among the first soldiers to be wounded. I am obviously aware of everything that is happening in Quebec, but I have very little information about what is happening elsewhere. I know that injured soldiers from other provinces have also returned. I cannot say what kind of follow-up they have received.

As I said earlier, that is great if they can go back to school, but a college diploma only guarantees you a small income. If they have a family, it simply is not comparable. Like everyone else, they have obligations. They have a house, the value of which reflects their previous income. The same applies to their car. Of course, you can always change that; they can always drive a Volkswagen instead of a Mercedes, but will they also have to sell the house they want to keep? These are the kinds of things that concern me, in terms of their going back to school. Also, I am not sure they would make good employees, being affected by post-traumatic stress disorder. That worries me. They are so moody and are always wanting to be by themselves. Just how do you get them to be part of a group?

Last week, I saw a program on television that some of you may have seen, because I know you have very long work hours. It was broadcast on HiSToRiA TV. It was a program about post-traumatic stress disorder. There were men who had been out of the Canadian Forces for quite a few years. They were still suffering serious after-effects. One of the men went everywhere with a knife in his pocket, which is rather strange. If he went to the movies, he would always have to sit at the back. Another could no longer stand to go to a butcher shop or see a meat counter. He said he had seen enough flesh. It sends shivers up and down your spine.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Ms. Matteau.

Mr. André, you have seven minutes.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Good morning, Ms. Matteau. I would like to commend you and thank you for being here today. I felt it was very important that you be able to appear. We have heard from quite a few officials, and it is important to now hear from someone who has personal experience dealing with a young soldier who has returned from Afghanistan.

You are making a very strong recommendation with respect to the lump sum amount and the benefit. We agree with you, as do many other people who appeared before the Committee. They said that when a large amount of money is given to young people who are only 22 or 23 years old, they may end up blowing all the money, which means that for the rest of their lives, they have nothing and the family has to support them.

As I understand it, your son has been offered $100,000.

[Francine Matteau]

Yes, Nicolas is now up to about $165,000. He should find out about the date of his appeal any day now. In principle, he should receive the maximum amount, considering his disabilities. They are quite serious. His legs are seriously crippled; he cannot walk. It is all right in a house, but his ankles do not adjust when he is on the ground, because they are pretty well fixed in one position. He has had nine surgeries on his legs and on his heel, and he is constantly in pain. It is difficult for him. As paradoxical as this may seem, he does ride a bike. And that is a good thing, because my two sons are former racing cyclists—they are champions, in fact. His weight is not on his legs and his feet are supported by the pedal. In fact, that is what he would like to do in Thailand. He would like to start a cycling tourism business. He was also thinking of buying some land to grow sugar cane.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

And right now, he is fighting to be given the maximum amount.