Veterans Affairs Committee on May 25th, 2010

[Francine Matteau]

In general terms, it might be an appealing idea, although it may not be for my son, because he will be leaving the country to go and live in Thailand.

The comments that have been made in that respect are somewhat contradictory. I have read articles in the newspapers—I follow developments in that area very closely. I do not recall the names, but I read that injured soldiers could be kept in the army and given other jobs. We all know they could perform lots of other office tasks, without having to play a combat role. In another article, however, it said that veterans cannot be kept in the army because that would eventually mean that we would be accepting disabled men as soldiers, which would be contrary to established standards.

It is obvious that these soldiers do not have the necessary characteristics. You all know what the standards are. For example, they have to be able to run a certain number of kilometres with a certain number of books on their back, they have to be able to crawl, and so on. So, it is obvious that these veterans would not meet those standards.

In fact, I talked about this with my son. He told me that the guys were pretending nothing was wrong; they were trying to hang on, of course. Before taking his parental leave, Nicolas worked in the officers' mess at the Citadelle, and he could have continued to work there for a certain period of time.

However, because of the basic rules that apply in the Canadian Forces and the requirements to be met to be accepted as a soldier, slowly but surely they are moved closer to the exit door, because they can no longer fulfill those requirements. They cannot get rid of them for no reason; they are not savages. However, they cannot hire injured soldiers to be part of the Canadian Forces.

They can take certain jobs in the federal government, for example. If they have the prerequisites, they would supposedly have priority for available jobs. However, they cannot be in the Canadian Forces because they do not meet the standards. As I said earlier, someone who is disabled could use the fact that the Canadian Forces agree to keep handicapped soldiers in their ranks to argue that he can work at a computer or do this or that. That would be a problem. And they were saying that it simply is not possible—at least, that is what I read in the newspaper.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Matteau and Mr. Stoffer.

Now on to Mr. Kerr and Mr. Lobb, for seven minutes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Madame Matteau, for joining us today.

We're going to share our time. Our time goes quickly, so I'm only going to get to one question.

We've heard a lot of concerns about the lump sum, but I'm a little confused. Your son is still with the Canadian Forces, am I correct?

[Francine Matteau]

Yes.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

So he's getting an income right now from the Canadian Forces.

[Francine Matteau]

Exactly.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

And therefore he gets a number of benefits from the Canadian Forces. So as long as he's with the Canadian Forces, he does have medical coverage and those types of things.

Your last comment, if I understood correctly, is suggesting there's a time limit on how long one can stay. Has he been told that he has to leave the armed forces?

[Francine Matteau]

He has not been told that. Indeed, he was one of the first combat soldiers to be injured. I would just like to remind you that the first cases of this kind do not go back 20 years; they only go back to 2006. It was in 2007 that the first soldiers were injured. So, it has not been very long.

Nicolas put in a request to be released last week. As I was explaining earlier, he would like to go and live in Thailand. First of all, living in Canada is very risky for someone like him, as soon as it starts to snow. He has no balance and his legs are severely crippled. It is impossible for him to go to the market on his own or even do the shopping at the local grocery store. As a result, he has decided to go and live in Thailand. That is his choice, of course.

He would like to start a cycling tourism business there. In the north, there are fabulous mountains and mountain passes for cyclists interested in excursions. So, he has asked to be able to take a course over there to learn to read, write and speak Thai. His wife does speak English. But he has not received a reply yet, so I cannot answer you.

Nicolas will have a basic income, since he has more than 10 years of service. That is why I am so concerned about others with less than 10 years of service, who have been given their full amount. They did the same thing with that money as they did with the lump sum payment.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

I appreciate that, and I understand, particularly for the youngest ones, but what I was getting at is that there's a real effort to keep those who are handicapped in the Canadian Forces. I just want to be clear that the option is certainly there, and we should see more of it as time goes on. So it certainly was his choice to move; it's not a matter of the Canadian Forces saying that he had to leave.

I know that Mr. Lobb has a question for you, so thank you.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

Thank you, Madame Matteau, and again, thank you to your son Nicolas for his service with the forces.

One of the misconceptions we've heard in this committee on this study of the new Veterans Charter is that our veterans receive a lump sum and then that's it, but that's actually not the case. We've heard many discussions about a pension. I just wondered if you're familiar with the earnings loss benefit and the income that our veterans receive; they receive the lump sum and an earnings loss benefit that is 75% of their income. Are you familiar with that?

[Francine Matteau]

The programs are not all that easy to understand for people like us who try to find things on the Web, because a lot of pages are blacked out—there is a kind of censorship. Also, soldiers are not very open, because they are always afraid of the system; there is a code of silence and they are always very afraid.

I know that the 75% is there during their training—in other words, during the period when they are back in school. I know about the 75%. I said that earlier: that is fine, because they will have a lot fewer deductions, which means that there will not be such a big difference in income.

The supplement, as you say… for an injury, for example—and there again, I do not know exactly how you set these amounts. I also know someone who is receiving $780 a month because he has severe post-traumatic stress syndrome. So, he has $780 a month, and he is the same guy working as a security guard. He will be living with far less income.

It is the loss of income forced on them that I cannot accept. They went overseas and fought for our country, for your country, for their country and, in fact, it is as though they were being penalized for choosing a military career.

All these programs are so complicated that even a lot of soldiers do not understand them all. It is very complicated. They are forever being forced to go back and present additional justifications. What could be more humiliating for them than that?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

If I may, I have just one follow-up question.

You may be surprised that the earnings loss benefit will go to age 65 in circumstances; even after they've completed their training and are unable to find a job, they would be eligible until age 65. I think that's important to note. The other point, I guess, is that 75% is 75% of whatever you're making. That's just what it is. If it adds up to $700, I suppose that's what 75% would be.

The other point is that with the suite of programs that Veterans Affairs has put in under the Veterans Charter, that deals with the psychological, with the job retraining and job placement--

[Francine Matteau]

Pardon?

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I'm sorry. My dad is an auctioneer, so I learned to talk fast at an early age.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Francine Matteau]

Ça va.

[Ben Lobb, Conservative, Huron—Bruce, ON]

I guess the point I'm trying to make is whether you would recognize that there's a value to that as well and that all veterans are eligible for that. All veterans' family members--immediate family members--are eligible for that for life. Would you recognize that there is a value there to make sure they're continually on the road to wellness?

[Francine Matteau]

I am in favour of the road to wellness. However, in terms of their returning to a normal life, I doubt that they can do that. Post-traumatic stress lasts a lifetime.

When you have disabilities that prevent you from… Please excuse me for always citing the example of my son, but the fact is that I do not know 50 different soldiers and the specific after-effects they are suffering. In the case of my son, he is fine as long as he is walking on a carpet, but as soon as he goes outside, he cannot take more than three steps without wincing in pain.

And you talk about 75% of his income? I wonder what it will take to actually get that 75%. Because I can tell you that, if they want their $269,000, they really have their work cut out for them and they had better be prepared to make some good arguments. They have excellent legal counsel, but they have to work very hard in order to receive the maximum lump sum benefit.

And you say they are entitled to 75% of their income for the rest of their lives? What will they have to do to be eligible to receive 75% of their income for the rest of their lives?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Thank you, Madame Matteau. Mr. Lobb's time has run out, and we don't give any latitude to be able to answer the witness.

We only have eleven minutes left, so we'll have the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the Bloc Québécois, for four minutes each. That way we won't eat too far into Mr. Leduc's time.

Madam Sgro, for four minutes.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to provide you with the opportunity to elaborate a bit more, but I first have to say you are a great advocate on behalf of not only your son but many other men and women who are concerned and have come before the committee.

I agree with you. I think the issue is how you live on 75%, if it's $700 a month. You get a package deal of $260,000 if you're lucky, and you have a lot of other support programs and so on. But the reality is that you then have to live on $700 a month, which is 75% of what a young man would have been earning. That would create a whole lot of other problems.

I certainly share some of the concerns--I suspect all of us do--and we are trying to make changes. What kinds of changes would you advocate then?

He's a young man. He lost a lot of years, which is why he partially gets a lump sum. What changes do you think we should be doing? If it's not 75%, what should it be?

[Francine Matteau]

Indeed, he has lost part of his life and part of the integrity of his person. Many have lost their legs, while others have lost their arms; still others are completely disfigured. What does the future hold for them? This raises serious questions in my mind, because I am sure you can imagine that it is not always easy. They have a whole life ahead of them. For example, they may want to start a family—they are only 22 years old—even though they may not have a spouse right now. And it is important to realize that it may not be easy for them to find a spouse, when they no longer have any legs or are missing an arm. It is fine to feel sympathy, but we are not all like Mother Teresa.

Under this program, the fact that they are single or have a family is not taken into consideration at all. I would like to go back to what was in place previously. I think they were fairly well served by the pensions they received before. They took into account that the people receiving them were single, or had a wife and one, two or three children.

I realize that we cannot ask for the moon. But what I would like them to have is financial security. I have even heard of cases where soldiers' wives have committed suicide because the burden was just too much to bear. We cannot allow this to go on; that is absolutely inconceivable. They do not deserve to be treated in this manner.

It is all well and good to say that they are offered a whole range of programs, but they always have the impression that they have to go and beg for things. Pardon the expression, but I would call this a “welfare plan”. That is how I see it. It is humiliating for them. It makes no sense. In fact, it is so humiliating and so complicated that many of them simply give up.

Right now, we are looking for the ones who are homeless in Montreal and Calgary; we will go back there because some simply give up. Remember that these are not people like you and me; they are extremely fragile emotionally.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

You have 30 seconds.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

No, it's okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Sweet]

Okay, now on to the Bloc Québécois.

Monsieur Vincent, for four minutes.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you.

I would like to come back to the following issue. When we say that someone has a pension, it is always relative. In the past, my job was to defend people who had been injured in the workplace in Quebec, and the system there is similar to the one that provides pensions to CF members who have been injured or wounded. It is always difficult for them to have their injuries recognized for what they are, or be admitted into a program or something similar.

Reference has often been made to the 75%, but that is not for life. If someone has a 10% or 15% disability, he will be put in a rehabilitation program, as you say, and will be trained as a security guard. I can tell you that, in Quebec, that is what they do with these people in 90% of cases. They all become security guards, because that is the simplest course to take and the simplest job you can work at and, that way, they get rid of them.

However, once that person is back on the job market and is earning $20,000, whereas before, he was earning $40,000, do you think that the Canadian Forces could pay the difference between the earned income he had previously, as a CF member, and his new income? Could the Canadian Forces bridge the gap between the two salaries? What do you think?