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.
:
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.
:
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.
:
Yes, the reality is quite different. Of all my son's friends and acquaintances, none is satisfied with the treatment he has received. They have all gone from one appeal to the next. It is frustrating, and it is difficult for them to be constantly reliving these events. I can tell you that in August, my son will have been going through this for three years, and it is still not resolved. There are others whose situation is even worse. I know of no one who has seen his case resolved quickly—not one. It is all well and good to look at what it says in the book about how things are supposed to work, but the fact is that, in actual practice, that is not at all the way they work.
And I would like to add one more thing. Because my son has more than 10 years of service—he will have 12 or 13 by the time he is fully released—he will be entitled to a monthly pension from the Canadian Forces. It is not much—only about $1,100 a month, because it is part… I do not know what the exact amount will be.
However, people who have less than 10 years of service receive a pension that corresponds to only part of the full amount. Imagine if he has nothing left of the $200,000 or $150,000—it is based on his injuries, and as I said earlier, you have to fight long and hard to obtain the maximum benefit and provide evidence as well. He will no longer have any basic income.
For example, if he ends up having to do what the person I talked about earlier did, and take a security guard course, he will be earning $25,000 a year. Nicolas was telling me that nowadays, even beginners, or combat soldiers, earn about $40,000 a year, at the beginning of their career.
:
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.
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?
:
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?