Veterans Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Francine Matteau]

Well, to begin with, I think it would be very complicated administratively. There again, they would have to provide justification, over and over again. It is humiliating. Imagine what it would be like to administer such a program; it would cost a fortune! It would be extremely costly.

That would be like saying that every time they lost their jobs… These people are unstable. I have been living with my son since he returned to Canada, and sometimes I think to myself that you have to be an angel to put up with him. And yet, he is a really great guy who normally has a wonderful character. However, given his mood swings and his aggressiveness, who would want to put up with him at work?

So, I say: give them back their pensions. Soldiers are not lazy by definition. Yes, they may take two, three or even four years to recover and to realize that they cannot go on that way and have to find something to do. They will be bored doing nothing. And that is when they will realize that they have to find something to do. And, if they are able to earn $20,000 more a year, that is even better; they will certainly have earned it.

A sharing arrangement, such as what you are suggesting, might be a great solution, but I think it would be very difficult to implement.

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

Thank you, Ms. Matteau, for your testimony today.

One last recommendation was made by a Committee member and I would be interested in hearing your views on this. I have not yet formed my own opinion. The recommendation is that 30% of the staff working for the Veterans Affairs Department, as public servants, would be made up of veterans. What do you think of that recommendation?

[Francine Matteau]

Are you saying they would be public servants or that they would work for the Canadian Forces?

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

They would work for the Veterans Affairs Department.

[Francine Matteau]

The answer is no. Why? Well, I read in a newspaper—unfortunately, I did not bring the article with me—that neither the Canadian Forces or Veterans Affairs are able to accept disabled people. And they are disabled. I am not absolutely certain, but I do know that the Canadian Forces could not accept them.

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

Yes, but at the Veterans Affairs Department, they would be doing office work.

[Francine Matteau]

These are guys… I have come to know some of my sons' friends. If you sit them behind a desk, I can tell you that six months later, they will shoot themselves in the head, because they are active people. You just cannot talk to them about bureaucracy. So, it is difficult.

Others might be very happy, though. Yes, that could be a possibility.

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

It opens doors; these are possibilities.

[Francine Matteau]

You know, I did not come here just to criticize. I want to find solutions.

If the Veterans Affairs Department agreed to let them do office work—it is true that some like that kind of thing—they would be very happy to do that work for the same salary—in other words, for the same salary they were earning in the Canadian Forces, of course. I think that would be acceptable.

However, will the other ones, who do not agree to do that, be forced to… After all they have given to this country; will they, once again, be forced to do something? In other words, will they be expected to obey orders, as if they were still in the Canadian Forces—to take what they are offered without saying a word, other than “Yes, Sir!”; it is the code of silence.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Matteau.

Next we have Mr. Storseth, for four minutes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Matteau, I want to thank your son for his dedication and sacrifice to our country. I want to thank you and your family for the dedication and sacrifice that you've also made to our country.

I agree with some of what you're saying. These are not individuals who simply need to be retrained because their jobs are no longer functions of society. These are individuals who had expectations and career expectations. Somebody such as your son would have expected to continue to move forward throughout the ranks at a certain general level, and that a certain standard of living would be maintained if they stayed in the forces. There are certainly some changes that need to be made. The charter is a living charter, and that's why we're looking at some of the changes.

I'm hesitant to say there shouldn't be any lump sum. I think there needs to be a blend. Some programs need to be put out, and we need to take a serious look at all of this to find the right solution. I have many veterans in my area who have come back from Afghanistan injured, and at least some initial lump sum is very helpful in getting them started in their lives. But there definitely needs to be another look--whether it's monthly, or who knows.

But there's something I want to address with you, because it's very concerning. You talked about them being rejected by those they trusted, abandoned by the system, and having to fight again and again for their lump sum payments. It is very troubling that we would have men and women coming back from theatres of war after risking their lives for our country, only to feel rejected by the bureaucracy--that's what we're talking about here--in which they were fighting, in some cases.

I have two questions for you. First, do you have any solutions or ideas for how we can better serve our men and women coming back from a war with the bureaucracy? Are there ways you have seen, in going through the system, that we can streamline the system better?

The second question is a personal one from me on PTSD. Your son is very fortunate that he was diagnosed while still in DND. Those members who aren't diagnosed for five, six, or seven years face a real uphill battle in trying to access even some of the basic entitlements from the Government of Canada. So do you have any suggestions for us or ideas on how we could better serve our veterans as they come over?

[Francine Matteau]

First of all, as I recall, Nicolas had to go and see a psychologist when he came back from his mission. He had no choice. I believe they were forced to go and see someone, but I cannot guarantee you that this is the case.

Nicolas always refused medication because we are against taking drugs. When he came back, he told me that he had never wanted to take any medication and that he had been followed very closely by a psychologist. He was not against that at all, because he had an excellent psychologist. However, he did tell me that he felt as though it was catching up to him. I knew that was so because I could see the way he was and because I know my son. I knew that, not only was it catching up to him, but that it had already caught up to him before he even left for Thailand.

As regards the lump sum payment, we keep coming back to the same problem. We keep coming back to the fact that, if you give them more money or the infamous lump sum payment, they will end up wasting it. I hesitate to talk about percentages, but I really wonder whether 10% or even 5% of those who received a lump sum payment still have any money. What we are hearing is that there is no more money and that none of them have any left. But when you hear things like that, it is important to take them in stride. I have some life experience, and I know that nuance is important. I would not go so far as to say that 99.9% of them do not have a penny to their name, but I would say that is the case for the majority. And, according to medical staff at Valcartier, not one has any money left now. There may be some soldiers at other bases that are wiser than that, I do not know; but at Valcartier, that is the way it is. At the same time, it would not be correct to say that none of them has any money now, since my son still has some. But it is a difficult question to answer.

What was the other question? Sorry.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

It's just on the system itself and whether you have any ideas on how we can better streamline the system to service our veterans when they come home. Is there any one thing that really hit you when your son was going through this that would make it better and easier for our veterans?

[Francine Matteau]

As I see it, there is only one: bring back the monthly pension. That is the top priority. It would not be difficult to do and it is the only way to ensure their security. I keep coming back to the fact that these individuals are fragile, with physical and psychological wounds. Physically, what will they be like 10 years from now?

When you are 60 years old, you often have pains here and there when you get up in the morning, or your knee hurts the following morning. But will they, who have serious injuries to their legs and have had multiple surgeries—and many of them have—still be able to walk at the age of 60 or will they be in a wheelchair?

That is why I say it is all well and good to have all these programs… First of all, have you thought of how they will all be administered? It will be complicated. I am not an accountant, but I know how to count. And it seems to me it will be incredibly complex. But the main thing is that soldiers will forever have to be justifying themselves. Do they deserve that? In your opinion, is it fair that they always have to justify themselves, after all they have been through? They feel empty inside. These people are human wrecks.

It is awful that they are forced to justify what they are asking for every time a new medical problem arises; they have to go through the same process time and again and provide an explanation over and over again. It is awful to put them through that. In my opinion, they do not deserve that, after what they have been through and what they have given to this country. And we cannot accept that—neither any of you or any citizen of this country, starting with myself.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Matteau.

You've already heard from some committee members thanking you for the shared sacrifice your family makes. On behalf of the entire committee, please communicate our best wishes to your son and our gratitude for his service to Canada.

We will suspend for a few moments before we go in camera.

[Proceedings continue in camera]