NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, November 27, 1997

• 1529

[English]

The Chairman: (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Order, please.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses to this afternoon's committee meeting. If you will permit me, we have a couple of little housekeeping duties to do before we get into the crunch.

• 1530

The first thing I would like to discuss with the members is this. A few of you have talked to me about the sitting on Thursday afternoon. Some of you have mentioned that it conflicts with the flights going out, and some of you have mentioned that maybe we could sit all day Tuesday, for instance, or Thursday morning.

I would like to leave it with you. Think about it and let me know by seeing me in person or by dropping me a little note. Let me know whether you prefer the way we're doing it right now, Tuesday and Thursday at 3.30 p.m., or whether you want some changes, either Tuesday morning or Thursday morning.

Second, we have a motion before us, proposed by Mr. David Price, that the committee invite the three Somalia commissioners to appear before this committee to speak on chapter 44 of the Somalia report, The Need for a Vigilant Parliament. Perhaps Mr. Price would like to talk for a moment, and then we can vote on it.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): I think I distributed chapter 44 to everybody in committee. Basically I want to talk to the commissioners about exactly that, the need for a vigilant Parliament and what's stated in that chapter. I want to question them on that. That's a part of our job here, so what they have to say about it I feel is very important.

The Chairman: Would anybody else like to speak on the motion before we call the vote?

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): I would certainly support my colleague, Mr. Price, 100%. I assume that chapter 44 deals with the section on accountability and the need for parliamentary involvement. I want to offer 100% support in that regard.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like to have the opportunity to go over chapter 44. I haven't had the opportunity to read it. I'm just wondering whether we could take the motion as a notice of motion and consider it at an upcoming meeting.

Mr. David Price: I have no problem with that. I want to be sure that everybody is clear on what it is.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I would like to say that I oppose the motion, and I will be voting against it. I think the forces have had enough of being in front of the press. It's just going to wring it out again, and I'm not in favour of it.

I think the forces are getting back to some kind of stabilized life. It had put this behind it. The committee had its report—read it carefully if you want—and it, especially chapter 44, spoke for everyone. I'm not interested in having it here.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Mr. Chairman, I'm not necessarily speaking for my honourable colleague Mr. Price, but I understood it would deal with Parliament's involvement and this issue of accountability, contrary to what the member on the Liberal side just announced.

Again, I believe the intent of the motion was to see how Parliament might be more involved.

Mr. David Price: It deals with our roles—not those of the military, but our roles.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Yes. I have a hard time seeing how anybody on the committee could be opposed to our examining how Parliament should be involved in the whole process of accountability. It's really hard to understand.

The Chairman: We've all heard the terms of the motion. I will now call the question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Excuse me, I would like a recorded vote.

• 1535

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

The Chairman: Thank you. We now go to the witnesses from the Department of National Defence.

Mr. David Pratt: Excuse me just for a minute, Mr. Chairman. I will have to leave, but I'm not leaving because I'm mad at you.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: No, that's right. You had mentioned it to me.

Vice-Admiral Maddison, maybe you could introduce the people who are here with you, and then you can start your presentation.

Vice-Admiral Greg R. Maddison (Chief of the Maritime Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you very much, Monsieur Bertrand and members of committee.

[Translation]

I am very happy to have the opportunity of meeting you this afternoon. On behalf of all the men and women who are members of the Navy, I would like to thank you for accepting this important task.

[English]

As you suggested, sir, allow me to introduce the people who are here with me. First, Commodore Glenn Davidson heads the personnel branch within the naval staff working for me, and Chief Petty Officer First Class Terry Meloche is the senior sailor in our navy.

The navy is the smallest service within the Canadian Forces, with some 13,000 uniformed personnel. We have approximately 9,000 in the regular force, located mainly in Halifax, Ottawa and Esquimalt; and 4,100 naval reservists located in 24 reserve divisions in 24 cities across Canada. The navy's main fleet units are 17 frigates and destroyers, three replenishment ships, three submarines and 12 coastal defence vessels. The fleet is roughly equally split between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Our maritime area of responsibility includes 27,000 kilometres of coastline and four million square kilometres of ocean, an area equal to 40% of the Canadian land mass. As we speak right now there are six frigates, two submarines and eight minor war vessels at sea, with over 2,000 Canadian sailors on board going about the nation's business.

[Translation]

Over the past year, in cooperation with the Coast Guard, Fisheries and Oceans and the RCMP, we have helped protect Canada's capital interests in the areas of environment, natural resources and sovereignty over our off-shore and coastal waters, which are recognized as being the most dangerous on the planet. Since the beginning of the year, our rescue operations coordination centres in Halifax and Esquimalt, in cooperation with the Air Force and the Coast Guard, intervened in more than 3,100 incidents at sea. Our sailors were part of the team that helped the citizens of Southern Manitoba fight the worst flood this century. We also made a major contribution to the security and logistics measures taken during the APEC summit in Vancouver.

[English]

In addition, over the past year, the navy has deployed to every major ocean, and has flown the Canadian flag in the harbours of 36 countries around the world. In support of the Canadian government's defence and foreign policy objectives, our ships have conducted their alongside rest and maintenance periods from Stockholm to Cape Town, and from Dubai and Singapore to Buenos Aires, Hong Kong and Fremantle, Australia.

This ongoing international activity is devoted to maintaining our combat capability and interoperability through exercise programs with our allies.

There are also real world operations. One example is HMCS Regina's deployment to the Persian Gulf from February to August of last year, where she participated in the enforcement of the ongoing United Nations sanctions against Iraq.

Our international visit programs are developed in close consultation with the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, and we pursue a variety of Canadian objectives. Obviously, we seek to deepen our ties with friendly nations, but we also assist with the development of new or evolving relationships for Canada. For example, in 1990 Canadian warships became the first western warships to visit the Russian Pacific port of Vladivostok since the 1930s. Again, last year a Canadian ship was the first western naval ship to visit Ho Chi Minh City since the end of the Vietnam war in 1975.

• 1540

[Translation]

In addition to supporting our diplomatic missions, meeting the public and establishing ties with other navies, our ships also use their visits to showcase Canadian high-tech industries. Recent foreign visits are said to have produced direct benefits of about 100 million dollars for Canadian high-tech companies. These are only a few of the tasks the Navy has performed for our country this year.

[English]

Now, what impact does all of this have on our people? On average over the past year, our regular and reserve force sailors and air crews spent well over 200 days away from home. This level of operations is by no means unusual, and the time away is neither easy nor relaxing.

Putting aside rough weather at sea, climate changes and a lack of privacy that many Canadians would find unacceptable, life at sea comes with the stresses of living and working in a dangerous environment around the clock. Whatever the deployment, be it patrolling in a potential war zone in the Persian Gulf or the Adriatic or conducting a routine replenishment at sea off our own coasts, going to sea is inherently demanding, stressful and risky work.

One of the great advantages of having a navy is that ships can deploy within hours and be on the way to any location in the world. Once in position, they can stay there almost indefinitely. This potential for short notice deployment underlies all of our operations and has always created a great deal of uncertainty for sailors and their families.

Ironically, then, our strength as an instrument of national policy is at the same time the source of our most formidable personnel challenge: how to maintain our operational commitments while providing our sailors and their families with a quality of life consistent with their expectations and those of Canadian society.

[Translation]

You of course realize that this frantic pace of operations has a serious human impact on our personnel and their families. Imagine for a minute the effect the prolonged absence of a spouse, of a mother or a father can have on the members of a family, both on those who are deployed and those who remain in the country.

We have taken a number of measures to help sailors and their families who are separated during operational deployments. We are also making progress on other fronts. For example, sailors on the West Coast no longer need to be separated as often from their families to take courses in Halifax and we are exploring other ways of improving the child care services provided to families on both coasts.

There is still much to be done in this area, and our naval personnel service is giving priority to these problems. We are absolutely sure of one thing: by following up on the legitimate concerns of our personnel and their families and by improving their quality of life, we are also increasing our ability to defend Canada and Canadian interests. In English, we say

[English]

that an operationally effective ship is a happy ship and a happy ship is an operationally effective ship.

In this context, let me say a few words about pay. As you will hear over the next few months, pay is a core issue in addressing the quality of life of our sailors and their families. Put simply, pay is the most tangible and visible measure of the nation's support for its military and of the value it places on the service of its people.

No one I know ever joined the navy for the money. It is, however, interesting to compare the situation of a naval sailor with his equivalent in the Canadian Coast Guard, CN Marine or B.C. Ferries. While merchant seamen in Canada all make roughly the same base salary, the naval sailor spends twice as much time at sea as his civilian colleagues in order to earn an equivalent salary.

• 1545

Our sailors see their service in the navy as a profession, not as an occupation. They're not seeking parity with industry in pay or benefits. They simply seek more reasonable compensation. Any recommendations your committee may have in this regard will certainly be welcome.

The pay and compensation issue is larger than just the scale of remuneration, or even pay comparability. Most Canadian families today rely on two incomes to make ends meet. This is a problem for the navy, as it is for the other services. For many families who have to move frequently, spousal employment is simply not possible. Spouses sacrifice careers to move across the country, and when they are settled, often find that employers do not wish to employ military spouses, who may move again in a short period of time.

Moves are expensive. Compensation for the costs associated with routine moves often does not cover a family's total expenses.

With the swings in real estate prices in recent years, some families have been hurt financially through home sales, even with the recent initiatives to protect home equity.

Education of our children is another factor. Those in high school are extremely difficult to move around the country.

To address some of these issues, the navy created what is known as “home port” divisions in the mid-1980s for our seagoing sailors. This policy ensures that our non-commissioned personnel spend about 80% of their careers in either Esquimalt or Halifax. But this policy applies only to roughly half of our people. We have not been able to pursue this option with our officers because their numbers are so small, and there are not always positions ashore to support a viable career progression on one coast alone. In the support trades or air crew employed on our ships, they are not hard sea trades and therefore do not come under the guise of home port divisions.

[Translation]

For various reasons, there are more and more people who do not bring their families with them when they change postings. This creates numerous problems, especially since these people do not often have a chance to see their families. Many members of our personnel, including Chief Petty Officer Meloche, have had this painful experience.

[English]

On the west coast the high cost of accommodation is second only to pay as a social and economic issue. Victoria is the third-most expensive real estate market in the country, behind Vancouver and Toronto. This poses huge problems for personnel arriving from lower-cost areas, such as Halifax, who may wish to purchase their own home, as well as for those who wish to rent government or commercial accommodation.

Service members pay more for accommodations in Victoria than they do in Halifax, when they all receive the same salary for the same rank. Surely our people should expect a uniform cost of living across the country. Our people should not suffer financially when they are required to move to a higher-cost area by the needs of the Crown. We need to be able to explore all the options for helping our sailors and our families, perhaps by raising basic pay or accommodation allowances; perhaps by providing tax relief for accommodation allowances; perhaps by applying a cost of living adjustment to high-cost areas; and perhaps by examining options for innovative solutions to our housing problems.

This latter point may entail novel financing arrangements in striking partnerships with the private sector. It will require a change in how we do business and is another key area in which the recommendations of this committee can help us greatly.

[Translation]

Since the putting into service of the new Kingston-class coastal defence ships, our reservists have taken on essential operational roles that are both different from and complementary to those of the sailors in the regular Force. The members of the Naval Reserve have taken up this new challenge with the enthusiasm and the energy we have come to expect from them. The much awaited salary increase for reservists, which will now bring their pay up to 85% of that of the regular Force, as well as certain elements of the reservists' working conditions improvement program will continue to contribute significantly to attracting and keeping the highly qualified personnel the Naval Reserve needs these days.

• 1550

[English]

Mr. Chairman, in inviting your committee to investigate quality-of-life issues within the Canadian forces, our minister asks you to consider the nature of the mutual obligations between the service member and the Government of Canada. Accordingly, allow me to close on this issue.

Our sailors are absolutely superb and rank among the most professional in the world. Their ships are superb as well. They have pride in their accomplishments, as do their families, and as do I as their commander. They consider themselves professionals, not employees, and they are proud to serve our country.

We want this to continue. We want Canada's best and most talented young people to want to join a profession that is demonstrably valued by the Canadian people through their government. I believe our goal as leaders is to ensure those people who choose to serve their nation are well cared for, they can live reasonably comfortably, and they are regarded as the equals of all other Canadians. These are not unreasonable expectations.

Our people's commitment to the country remains unquestioned. What they are questioning now, however, is the country's commitment to them. They need to know our nation continues to value their service. At present they are unsure whether this is the case. We need to reaffirm this in their minds. We welcome your role in helping us to define and confirm the government's responsibilities to them.

In summary, our sailors and their families in Victoria, Halifax, and Quebec City are eagerly looking forward to your coming visits. The issues we have been discussing are extremely important to them. We will ensure you receive in your visits a complete and accurate picture of the issues as they affect the naval and maritime air communities. You will see how our people live and work, what we ask of them, and what they give us in return. We will be taking you to sea in a Halifax-class frigate during your visit to the west coast and you will have an opportunity to tour a submarine during your visit to the east coast. Most importantly, you will meet our sailors and their families, and they will do the talking for us.

I must tell you in all frankness that our people have been studied and questioned quite extensively in the past few years. They know what the problems are. What they need now is solutions.

[Translation]

I would like to thank you for undertaking this very important task. We wish you the best of luck, but the very fact that you have undertaken this study is a good sign for our sailors.

Merci.

[English]

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We now go to question period. Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen, for appearing, and certainly for your presentation.

I was interested in your comments on the pay side for the reservists. The reservists are probably running in a slightly different role from what the militia might encounter. I understand too that many of the reservists may in fact end up going out to sea for a time, but I see they really don't get the same pay even though they may perform a similar duty when they do go out to sea. Is there some reason for that discrepancy in the pay differential there when they do the same job?

VAdm Greg Maddison: Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

One of the things we did some time ago when we introduced the maritime coastal defence vessel program was we decided the reserves would have specific tasks to complement the overall maritime mission. As a result the coastal defence vessels are manned almost exclusively by naval reservists to conduct coastal surveillance as well as to be able to have a modest capability in mine hunting and those sorts of coastal defence roles. We now have a situation where our reservists are being employed on our coastal defence vessels on deployments that are normally no longer than two to three weeks long. In the regular force, of course, our frigates and destroyers may go out for as long as six, seven, or eight months. So the length of deployments is not the same as it is for the naval reservists.

Occasionally we have reservists who sail on our frigates and destroyers and our AORs, who are there on class B contracts or class C contracts, and who will then get the same benefits and allowances as a regular force sailor.

• 1555

As you know, there is a proposal in front of Treasury Board, which hopefully will be approved relatively soon, that will bring the pay up to 85% of our regular force sailors. Quite frankly, from my understanding from my reservists, they're very comfortable with that 85% because, of course, they do not have the same unlimited liability that our regular force has. They can, for example, in terms of the contracts that are presented to them, decide to terminate their contract whenever they wish, whereas those in the regular force do not have the same ability to do that. So 85% of what the regular force makes is, on balance, from their sense and from our perspective, a reasonable level of pay for them.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you. It's good to hear that at least in the long term where there are long periods of time out to sea, there is equal pay.

Another complaint that has come up on the militia side is a concern about health problems. In more than one case, there were hearing problems; hearing was damaged as a result of shells exploding and the like, when service was taken over in Bosnia by reservists. They don't seem to have the same kind of coverage, or an opportunity to really search out and obtain satisfactory attention from the military. I'm wondering if you are aware of any reservists on the navy side who are suffering from the same consequence.

VAdm Greg Maddison: I'm not personally aware of any naval reservists who have the same sorts of difficulties you've just alluded to. Certainly, whenever we have reservists sailing in our ships, they have access to the same medical assistance everybody else has on board ship. If they happen to be ashore in either Equimalt or in Halifax, they have equal access to our medical facilities, as do others. Perhaps it's disabilities you're referring to—

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

VAdm Greg Maddison: —after a deployment. I have not heard of any difficulties in that regard from our naval reservists.

Chief, perhaps you may know, but I certainly haven't.

Chief Petty Officer Terry Meloche (Command Chief Petty Officer, Department of National Defence): No, I've never come across anyone who's been injured.

Mr. Art Hanger: Sometimes on the militia side, the reservists, there was a concern by several that were expressed to me on hearing problems that came up after the fact. They were no longer serving in the theatre. Some of them had stepped out of the military, out of the reservists, but they suffered these consequences afterwards and were having a difficult time getting satisfactory treatment through the military.

CPO Terry Meloche: With the naval reservists, I have no experience.

Mr. Art Hanger: I was very interested in a comment you made just prior to your concluding statements. I assume this is the naval side. You said:

What they are questioning now, however, is the country's commitment to them. ... We need to reaffirm this in their minds. We welcome your role in helping us to define and confirm the government's responsibilities to them.

Would you mind elaborating?

VAdm Greg Maddison: I think what we're referring to here, Mr. Hanger, is what social contract ought to be there between those who serve the country and the government itself toward them. As you know, we have had a freeze on wages for the last four or five years. We have had some differences in terms of housing. At the same salary, you go into housing, or you pay more in one area than you do in other areas.

As a result of that, people are basically asking the question: if we have the unlimited liability to serve the country, what is the responsibility of the government in terms of providing fair compensation, accessible housing at a fair price, and so on? It is those sorts of things we're really talking about in terms of the social contract between the government and our people.

• 1600

Mr. Art Hanger: It seems that your statement is somewhat broader than that too. I don't know. I hope I'm not trying to read anything else into it.

If you're looking at the country's commitment to them, could I read into this too that the overview of just what is required on the naval side, on the marine side, even as far as equipment is concerned would be part and parcel of this concern that the military may have?

VAdm Greg Maddison: No, I wouldn't necessarily say that, Mr. Hanger.

As I said earlier, we used to say that we have superb people with ships that were somewhat antiquated. We now have superb people in superb ships. I hope soon we will have superb people in superb submarines and superb people flying superb helicopters.

There are a number of those sorts of equipment acquisition programs that have really brought us up to a level of capability in terms of navies around the world.... We are very much envied in terms of our current sophisticated technology.

The people who serve on our ships now have the tools to allow them to execute their missions and their tasks to the level of capability that we had wanted for some time. So that's not the issue here. The issue is in terms of compensation, in terms of living standards, in terms of how we deal with our families. What ought to be the levels of support for our families when we're deployed for long periods of time, whether it's on exercises or whether it's in theatres of some risk? That's really what I'm talking about.

Mr. Art Hanger: All right. Ultimately, then, when it comes to equipment like submarines and helicopters, the fact that it may not necessarily work from a strategic point of view in its total form, there may be some holes there. This isn't a main concern to any of the rank and file within the military, and it's not a morale problem.

VAdm Greg Maddison: I wouldn't be as definitive as that. Certainly very much of the thinking of those folks who currently sail in submarines and those folks who are currently operating our Sea King helicopters is that we're at the point now where we're spending a significant amount of maintenance towards keeping these vessels and aircraft effective. It would very much boost their morale if indeed they had the tools to better allow them to do their job than they currently have.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Gentlemen, thank you for coming. I would like to begin with a question concerning articles printed in today's Ottawa Sun, to the effect that two Canadian officers are presently living in the United States in luxurious residences belonging to the Canadian government.

The first officer, Lieutenant General Lou Cuppens, Canada's NORAD representative, is presently living in Colorado Springs in a 3,850 square foot house worth $630,000. According to the article, the maintenance costs for this house, since 1995, have come to $276,000, including lawn cutting expenses. The second officer, Rear Admiral Kenneth Summers is working with NATO. He is living in Virginia in a 3,500 square foot house with an estimated value of $500,000. The problem with all this is not that they're living in little castles, but rather the rent they're paying to Ottawa to live in these mansions. If fact, we find that they're each paying $952 a month rent to live in these luxurious houses. The problem is that it's the taxpayers who are footing the bill.

I would like to ask you, Vice-Admiral, what you think of this affair. Don't you think these officers are getting preferential treatment? And don't you think that, in a situation where we are presently asking the National Defence Committee to examine the socio-economic factors affecting Canadian Forces, Navy and Air Force personnel, this whole affair is making a mockery of our work here today?

• 1605

[English]

VAdm Greg Maddison: I thank you very much for that question. Merci beaucoup.

First of all, I will tell you that this is not my file.

Secondly, as I understand it, madame, these houses were purchased by the government in the mid-eighties. The rents that are being paid in those houses are rents that have been established through Treasury Board guidelines, based on an average cost of housing across Canada. That is the same sort of policy for all Canadian government housing outside of Canada.

I have actually visited the house in Norfolk, as it turns out, some time ago. I would not classify this as a luxurious mansion. It is the sort of house that one would find in the Alta Visa community, as an example. The house is about 10 minutes away from the headquarters in which the admiral works. He is a representative of our country. He is expected to host various Canadian functions and he is able to do so in that house, which is in many respects more modest than perhaps is indicated in the press.

There was a business case analysis done by the Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, as I understand it. It would in fact be more costly to us if we were to rent accommodation as opposed to living in the house that we currently have.

There's one admiral who works outside of Canada in the United States, and he's in a house that was purchased by the government 10 or 11 years ago.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I am a bit disappointed that you find a situation such as this normal. You seem to be telling me that you think it's normal that we have houses like that in foreign countries to house certain military personnel such as the Vice- Admiral. The question is really whether we need this kind of mansions, especially when we know the involvement of some of these people who represent us and when we know our involvement, especially in NATO. Would renting not be cheaper? Personally, I think it would be, because if you consider the $276,000 spent on just one house, I think there's a problem somewhere. If you don't want to admit it, that's up to you, but I think there's a problem with this affair, especially in comparison with the wages we pay the rank and file.

That having been said, I'm going to go on to another question, since you seem to believe that this situation is justified.

As you know, Mr. Kinsman came here to testify this week, and I'm quoting what he told us:

As Canadian citizens, the members of the CF can expect to live in socio-economic conditions similar to those of their fellow citizens. On the other hand, the very nature of military service implies a way of life that includes considerable social and financial stresses that many other Canadians will probably never experience.

He goes on to say that it is up to this committee to "determine the extent of these differences" and to "decide how and to what degree the differences in question should be recognized and remunerated."

Do you not believe that, on the one hand, it is very likely that Canadian people in general are also experiencing substantial social and financial stresses and that, on the other hand, the only effect of taking military personnel by the hand is to turn them into babies by attempting to protect them from everything?

• 1610

[English]

VAdm Greg Maddison: If I could just go back to your first question again, madame, as I said, this is not my file, but I understand that a business case analysis was done in terms of the housing in the United States, of which there are two, and it would indicate that to change what we currently have would not be cost-effective.

A second point I would like to make in that regard is that when I was in Halifax before I came to Ottawa in my current appointment, one of the things we did was to rationalize our official residences that we had in Halifax. In fact, we have sold the residence of the maritime commander. We are in the process of selling the residence of the commander of the maritime air group. The other residences that we currently have are in the dockyard, which would be very difficult to sell, if you will, to the civilian marketplace. Indeed, they are heritage properties in their own right.

In terms of the state of our military, I well understand that the Canadian population as a whole in the last four or five years has gone through some very difficult challenges and travails, but many of the people in the population do not have the same sorts of challenges on them in terms of unlimited liability, in terms of where they have to serve in areas of considerable risk, in areas of considerable threat. Whether it's in Bosnia, or enforcing the sanctions in the Persian Gulf, or enforcing the maritime embargo against Serbia and Montenegro in the last few years, or enforcing the embargo off Haiti, we are putting our people at considerable risk. They have been doing an absolutely superb job in those sorts of missions that they have been asked to do by their country, and we are simply asking this committee, in terms of the support to them and to their families under the conditions in which they serve, is it a reasonable level of compensation? Do we have a reasonable level of support both to them and to their families, and are there things this committee could look at that would perhaps enhance their current quality of life?

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I have no more time?

The Chairman: No.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: OK. I'll be back.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: The issue of pay is without question the most important issue we're facing with respect to the armed forces. I wonder, in terms of conversations, feedback that you've got from members of the forces, what sort of timeline you would see as being within the expectations of members of the armed forces for having this issue dealt with.

VAdm Greg Maddison: As you know, sir, we have in fact gone through a bit of a process here in the last little while, where we have had incremental increases in pay for our people over the last year and a half, and indeed the process of trying to narrow that gap between our people and their colleagues in the public service is ongoing.

Negotiations are occurring with Treasury Board in terms of what you would call a pay raise. That is happening, and hopefully we will be able to conclude those sorts of negotiations by the end of this year, which will in fact be retroactive to April 1.

So there have been some positive steps and some progress has been made. If you were to ask the question simply as you've stated it, they'd probably say tomorrow.

Mr. David Pratt: Yes.

VAdm Greg Maddison: I think the answer would be, of course, sooner rather than later. It strikes me that a timeframe of a couple of years is probably a reasonable timeframe of expectation from their perspective, recognizing the realities of negotiations and so on, but their gut feeling would be sooner rather than later.

• 1615

Mr. David Pratt: A couple of years sounds like a long time in terms of having this issue at rest. Granted it is one that measures have been taken on, as far as pay increases go, but that comment kind of surprises me because I thought you would have said it would be a lot sooner than that.

VAdm Greg Maddison: I think I was trying to give the message it would be obviously sooner rather than later. I was also trying to deal with the reality of some of the negotiations that have to occur.

If a level of compensation that was deemed reasonable by this committee was able to be negotiated, they knew what it was, it was reasonable, and the message was that this was going to occur over the next year or two, it would be very well received by our people.

Chief, do you want to add anything to that?

CPO Terry Meloche: The studies are ongoing. We study our pay against other militaries, but we're still tied to the public service. There's a gap being made up now in small increments. This is the sort of thing the normal sailor is saying: “Well, if it's owed to me, why haven't I got it?”

As the admiral said, we need a plan—okay, in the next two years, 2%, I don't know, but something concrete. It's almost as though the unit has been without a contract since April 1 this year, isn't it? As the admiral said, we have superb sailors doing superb jobs, and we'll sail on.

Mr. David Pratt: To get a feeling for the compensation that is provided right now...the last time your colleagues from the air force were here I asked one of them what a CF-18 pilot would make. I suppose I could ask the same question to you folks.

Probably one of the most high-profile jobs in the navy is being a captain of a Halifax-class frigate, just in terms of understanding what the low end is and what the higher end is from an operational standpoint. Could you give us a feeling for the pay range of an ordinary seaman—I presume the lowest-ranking member of the navy would be an ordinary seaman—

VAdm Greg Maddison: An ordinary seaman, yes.

Mr. David Pratt: —and the pay range for a captain of a Halifax-class frigate? Do you have details on that?

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes, indeed I do. An ordinary seaman makes about $20,000 a year when he first arrives in the Canadian Armed Forces, whether he's a private in the army or ordinary seaman in the navy. Someone who commands one of our frigates or destroyers is at the rank of commander, normally, and the range for a commander is about $68,000 to $72,500. That is the range for a commanding officer who is responsible for 225 people on board and if it's in a frigate, a frigate that's worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

The interesting thing about that, in my view, is that the commanding officer cannot always be on the bridge of the ship 24 hours a day, responsible for the safety of the people and the equipment. So we have an individual who's known as the officer of the watch, who is the captain's representative in terms of being in charge of the movements of the ship and the people on behalf of the captain when he is not able to be in the ops room or on the bridge. We give that responsibility to our people when they're trained at the rank of sub-lieutenant. A sub-lieutenant makes $36,000, yet he is the captain's right-hand man in charge of the same number of people and the value of that particular ship. We give those people a heck of a lot of responsibility, yet they make about $36,000.

Mr. David Pratt: Can you juxtapose that against the pay of a normal hand on a B.C. ferry or the captain of a B.C. ferry? I know that might be stretching things in terms of access to the kinds of details you might have here with you. Can you give us a rough idea?

• 1620

VAdm Greg Maddison: I don't know whether we have the actual....

Commodore Glenn Davidson (Director General, Naval Personnel, Department of National Defence): Yes, we have.

VAdm Greg Maddison: For captains?

Cmdre Glenn Davidson: Not for captains, but certainly for sailors. I can give you precisely that.

It's all in roughly the same order, which is to say in the order of $36,000 or $39,000 a year for full annual compensation. We did a sampling of B.C. Ferries, Fisheries and Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard compared with our own people, and it came out on average for roughly the same work and level of experience, which is to say, in the order of five or six years of service. That is the general order of gross compensation.

The big difference we found—and it's very striking when you look at it—is that virtually every other marine employer in Canada, if you like, provides a time-off arrangement for time at sea. It can be, for example: in CN Marine's case, 5 days on, 5 days off; in the coast guard, typically for those ships that deploy, 3 months on, 3 months off; Fisheries and Oceans, a 28-day cycle, 28 days on, 28 days off. The net impact of that, when you look at it over the whole year, is that our people are spending 200 or 210 days away from home a year, and when you roll this all together, basically they have to spend twice as much time away for the same amount of compensation.

We're not asking for any sort of equivalency or for similar arrangements whatsoever. The point is simply that when our sailors do present to you their concerns over compensation, it's important that you look at the whole issue and the whole matter of what we ask our people to do and what they are doing for that amount of money.

Mr. David Pratt: Do we have time for one more question, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Yes, a quick one.

Mr. David Pratt: In terms of the submariners that you have with the navy right now, they must be feeling a little bit like the poor cousins in terms of the equipment they have to use. The Oberon-class submarines go back to the 1960s, I gather.

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes.

Mr. David Pratt: That is pretty old equipment.

VAdm Greg Maddison: I should say at the outset that if there's a group of people within the navy I respect the most, it is our submariners, because working on board a submarine is a very unique way of life. The living conditions are like nowhere else that you could particularly find, and they're working with equipment and machinery that were, as you say, around in the 1960s. But it's a badge of honour for them to continue to be able to produce excellent work for us in terms of surveillance, in terms of training for our people in the service fleet as well as for themselves, and they are able to continue to operate quite effectively.

But from a materiel readiness perspective, we know that those boats sometime in the new millennium will have reached the point where they are no longer effective. Thus, of course, is the articulation and the argument for a replacement capability for the O-boats. There is a defined end state for those boats, and depending on which one you're talking about, it is early into the next century.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We now go to the five-minute questions. But before we go to Mr. Benoit, I have one or two questions for you.

You were saying, Vice-Admiral Maddison, that you are in the midst of selling or trying to sell some residences in the Halifax area. Where does the money go once the homes are sold?

VAdm Greg Maddison: We have a revenue retention policy within the department. In regard to the house that was sold, which was the former admiral's residence on Young Avenue in Halifax, half of the sale of that house went back into the central system here in Ottawa to be used for other infrastructure projects, and the other half was retained by the formation in Halifax to use in whatever particular area the admiral wanted. So the good news was that half of the sale of that house went to the people in that area, in Halifax.

I believe we sold that house for somewhere in the vicinity of $335,000, and half of that stayed in Halifax.

The Chairman: Do you find that's a fair thing to do, that half of it comes back to Ottawa and you get to use half in Halifax, or would you rather see 100% being used in Halifax?

• 1625

VAdm Greg Maddison: If I were the admiral in Halifax, certainly I would like to be able to retain all of the sale of that particular house and to use it in the area for which I was responsible and for the people for whom I was responsible. This particular policy that we currently have is of course an improvement on what we used to have, where in fact it all went back to the central authorities here in Ottawa. So we've made some significant progress in that regard.

The Chairman: Is that money used for upkeep of homes that are still under the control of the Canadian Armed Forces?

VAdm Greg Maddison: The admiral can use the funds that stayed in Halifax for whatever he deems important for it to be used. Certainly, quality-of-life issues are at the top of his list, so I suspect that is where it went.

The Chairman: I have one quick last question about the veterans. I have heard a few complaints about the fact that once a person comes out of the Canadian Armed Forces, they are left high and dry when it comes to medical services. Have you any comments on that? How are we treating our veterans once they come out of the armed forces?

VAdm Greg Maddison: We've discovered that we've had some challenges in this regard, Mr. Chairman. I know that my colleague, the Assistant Deputy Minister, Personnel, has undertaken a study to look at this very issue. In fact, the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff some months ago caused that study to commence. I don't know the status of it. I believe it will be completed sometime within the next couple of months, but we've discovered there are some challenges in that area and that's the reason we're doing this study.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Before I ask my first question, I have to make a comment on the houses. I also read the article this morning. As I was reading the article, my thoughts were that these mansions really don't seem very reasonable. Then I thought about the way the media had portrayed the Reform Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition taking Stornoway, and how they had portrayed Stornoway as being a mansion beyond anything reasonable.

In fact, if you go to Stornoway, it has a stucco exterior and a gyprock interior, as any other house. It isn't a mansion, but it does serve the function. It serves the function that's needed for the Leader of the Official Opposition.

So I read the article and then I put it aside. I don't know whether it does make sense or not. I'm not going to pass judgment on that, but those were my thoughts at the time.

I'm going to get back to the statement that Mr. Hanger read earlier. He asked some questions on this, but I don't feel we are completely finished with it yet.

On page 6 of your report you say:

Our people's commitment to the country remains unquestioned. What they are questioning now, however, is the country's commitment to them.

You've already said that part of what you're talking about is housing and pay. Those certainly were two of the things that I thought of, but there is another broader issue in terms of the country's commitment and the government's commitment to the forces in general that I have to ask you about.

You well know the number of personnel in the forces has been dropping quite dramatically, to a point where many question whether the forces can really perform the function that we need them to perform in this country. We've seen governments for the past 30 years, in particular, demonstrate that they really have very little commitment to our forces. That's a real concern.

Reform is the party of spending cuts. In the campaign leading up to the 1993 election, we proposed spending cuts to the military, but from a level of $12.5 billion down to about $1 billion, and that was it. Now, as you well know, over the next year or so the total spending on the military will be down close to $9 billion. The numbers are below a level that reports have said is a critical level, so I think we have a problem there.

• 1630

I don't think money is the whole solution to improving the thing. It may be part of it, but I don't believe it's the whole solution. Is this apparent lack of commitment on the part of governments in terms of maintaining numbers—and I guess along with that, maintaining spending at a certain critical level—part of the commitment you were referring to? Or am I completely off track on that?

VAdm Greg Maddison: Our department has recognized the fiscal situation that the country has been in for the last number of years. That was one of the main reasons that, in terms of being able to keep a combat capability, we have looked at the difference between the sharp end and the support side of the department. That is why we have embraced a number of areas, particularly dealing with alternate service delivery, where we can provide those support functions in a more cost-effective manner than perhaps we were able to do in the past.

I will now speak from my personal experience and responsibility for the navy. I am tasked to have two task groups, one based on each coast—one in Halifax and one in Esquimalt. My readiness level is to be able to sail a task group of ships, including a command and control destroyer, a number of frigates and, depending on what the mission is, a submarine and a maritime air capability with a helicopter capability, within ten days of a call for that task group to be deployed for a particular mission or task. I can do that, Mr. Benoit.

My other task group is at 30 days' readiness, such that I have 30 days to make the necessary preparations to sail the second task group. I can do that as well. So in terms of Canada's naval capability to execute its missions and tasks and whether we can maintain that sharp end, yes we can.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you really don't have any concern about the number of personnel in the navy?

VAdm Greg Maddison: In terms of the number of people I have for the regular force and the reserve force to conduct their missions and tasks, I can do what I have to do with the number of people I have.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I guess it's a bit of an unfair question because you're not the person who decides what the purpose of the navy is, what functions it should have and at what level the navy should operate. So you're saying you can meet the commitment or the guidelines that are there.

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes, I can.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, your five minutes are up. We can come back to you. We have lots of time.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria—Haliburton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Vice-Admiral, I think a lot of my questions regarding pay scale have already been talked about, and we've also addressed housing—not the big houses but the regular type houses. When you go from Halifax to Esquimalt, you run into that difference between the regions. We've talked about the disadvantage the military has in not having a really good housing plan, a guaranteed house sale plan.

Coming out of the real estate business, of course, I am all in favour of that. Hopefully, during our committee meetings I'll be able to bring to the fore some of the disadvantages of the present plan and suggest some improvements to it.

In particular, I want to deal with submarines and the deal that's on the market now for the British submarines. I was interested in your evaluation of them as to their function and use in the armed forces. Although I restore antique cars, I don't know of any 1960s cars that I'd drive to Florida, let alone take under water to Florida. It's like flying on a jet that's 20 or 30 years old. That is always a problem for me too.

The British Upholder class of submarines—what would their use be and would they be of any long-term benefit? What's your evaluation of that particular...?

• 1635

VAdm Greg Maddison: Are you're talking about the role of submarines in general, or the role of that particular class?

Mr. John O'Reilly: That particular class, because we're talking about nuclear-powered subs or diesel engines, or whatever. Are they so old, so antiquated that they're of no value? Are you so anxious to get subs that this is the deal you would go for or recommend, because perhaps it's the only one there, or will they actually have a function and a use within the navy?

VAdm Greg Maddison: They certainly will have a function and a use within the navy. A navy is particularly effective when they have all the components of a maritime capability working together to bring a certain synergy from the maritime-air perspective, from the surface perspective and from the subsurface perspective, which any submarine will bring.

If you take a task group and take it to sea, whether it's doing surveillance, counter-drug operations, fisheries enforcement, or it's going into an area of some conflict or threat, you have, if you will, the forwards of the hockey team in the maritime air. They are out there hundreds of miles ahead of the task group and are your friends, your eyes and ears. They can feed you back information on what the disposition is. They can provide you with information to allow you to deal with where you should deploy your ships and indeed where you should deploy your submarines.

The helicopters on board our ships are then at a nearer range, perhaps 70 to 100 miles from the surface ships. In terms of being able to conduct the operations such that perhaps the first weapons will go in the water much forward by the air assets and not by the surface assets...but then as you get closer, the ships are there. They are, if you will, the rushing defencemen of the maritime hockey team.

Your key card is that very covert capability, which is the submarine capability, very quiet. No one really knows where they are, except for the people who are using them, i.e., the commander of that task group. It is very much a deterrent in that sort of scenario of threat at sea.

In terms of surveillance, for example, we have used our submarines vis-à-vis fisheries enforcement, where no one knew they were there. As a result, we were able to accomplish some things because of that covert capability.

The O-boats that we currently have are, as you know, some 30 years old. The weapons and the sensor systems of those boats have been upgraded and indeed are quite effective, but it's the boat frame itself that is getting older.

There are some significant valves in those submarines. It's difficult now to find valves to replace them. We have assessed that from, as I said, a material readiness perspective. Those boats will come to the end of their useful life sometime within the next three, four, or five years.

To replace that capability, we have put a proposal to the government, which is obviously under consideration, that the British Upholder submarine can be an excellent replacement for those boats. They're not nuclear-powered vessels; they are diesel submarines. They're only a few years old. They're very quiet. They dive a ship's company that are a lot fewer than what we currently have in our O-boats. Therefore, we can accrue some personnel savings as a result. The submarine fleet itself, in terms of operating it, is only about 3% of my overall budget to basically run the navy.

So all that to say, yes, there's a requirement for submarines, and the Upholders will certainly be a very effective subsurface platform.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I'm in favour of the submarines, by the way.

Mr. Art Hanger: We are very much in favour of the submarines, and for the price of one, we should have had them a long time ago.

The Chairman: Yes, Ms. Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would just like to make a small comment on the subject of mansions and castles. I find it interesting to hear that now that Mr. Manning is living at Stornoway, it is no longer luxury accommodations, according to Mr. Benoit.

But let's get on to more serious matters and come back to the question of wage parity with the Civil Service. Vice-Admiral, you even mentioned a while ago that you had done a wage parity comparison between the Navy and the Civil Service.

• 1640

I was reading the other day the information book that was given to Committee members last winter, in particular Volume 2 titled Technical Briefs. After the paragraph on compensation and benefits in the Canadian Forces, in the background notes, it comes to the following conclusion concerning National Defence:

...The ability of the Ministry to fill in the gaps regarding the comparability of compensation between the Canadian Forces and the Civil Service remains problematic.

That's the conclusion. In the updates we received this week, the conclusion is the same. The fact that soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel have benefits and services that federal civil servants do not have must be taken into consideration. For example, they have a financial counselling service and recreational services; in some family support centres, they have a 24 hour a day emergency child care service and a job search service for spouses; in some regions, they also provide families with low-rent housing, and so on and so on.

This being the case, do you not think, Vice-Admiral, that wage parity with the Civil Service is ludicrous since we are being asked to compare two totally different worlds?

[English]

VAdm Greg Maddison: I think, simply stated, that is the challenge we face in terms of whether or not we should in fact have a pay comparability system tied with the public service. That's certainly helping us right now, because there is that gap between the public service and our sailors. That is allowing us, because of Treasury Board direction and guidelines, to allow an increase in our wages for our sailors and our people throughout the Canadian Forces, to get up to that level of comparability. But afterwards that is the really tricky question.

The difficult question is what makes sense in terms of a reasonable compensation level for people who have that unlimited liability on them and who could be put at very short notice into situations where they are under some threat and under considerable risk. That's what I would hope you and your colleagues would be able to look at. Does it make sense for us to have comparability with the public service, or should we be totally separate? An analysis should be done as to what makes sense for those of us in uniform in terms of things such as wages and benefits and allowances.

I don't have any simple answer to that. That's one of the things I would hope the committee would be looking at.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Not Long ago, I seem to remember asking someone who came to testify before the Committee, and I wonder if it wasn't General Baril, if a wage comparison between the Navy and the Civil Service has been done anywhere else in the world. Have any been done? Do we know? Are you aware of any?

[English]

VAdm Greg Maddison: Actually, personally I don't know whether there is any sort of equivalency of various armies, navies and air forces being compared to the public service in terms of wages. I don't know whether that's the case or not. So I can't give you an answer in that regard. I do know that my colleague ADM (Per) is looking at other armed forces in the world to determine what it is they provide for in terms of compensation and benefits and to compare us with them. Some useful conclusions and observations might come out of that study.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Chairman, It would perhaps be interesting to ask our researchers to see in there is such a wage comparison between the Civil Service and soldiers, sailors and Air Force personnel anywhere else in the world.

• 1645

The Chairman: We can have them try to find out if there is such a thing elsewhere.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: OK.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Venne.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a quick comment and maybe get a reply in reference to these submarines again, because this rather interests me.

I understand that this country can basically pick up four submarines for the price of one from England. The last one, the newest one, was actually commissioned in 1993, and the oldest in 1990. All were decommissioned in 1993. So in other words, they're almost brand new. Why do you think there's this reluctance about purchasing them when we so desperately need them—from what I can tell—for this strategic security net for the maritime side of the military?

VAdm Greg Maddison: Mr. Hanger, my responsibility is to argue for the need for submarines.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay, others make the decisions. I just wanted to ask you that.

The other thing I wanted to ask is maybe a little more on the social side of things, but that's what we're here for. Why is there a policy of not having women on submarines?

VAdm Greg Maddison: It's not necessarily a policy of not having women on board submarines; it's a policy of not having women on board the O-boats. When you get an opportunity to see the Oberon submarines when you go down to the east coast, you will have a much better appreciation of the living conditions on board those boats. There is absolutely no privacy in that submarine. I think there are one or two showers, and the bunks are all on top of one another. Unless you make major structural changes to the submarine, there's no ability to actually provide privacy for people.

Therefore, when the analysis was done in terms of where people of both genders can serve, it was concluded, not just by this department but by others assisting in this regard, that it really was not an appropriate vehicle for both men and women to be living on together because the conditions are so severe.

I dare say that should Upholder submarines come to Canada...the living conditions are somewhat different in those boats. One of the things I will very closely examine is whether or not there can be the opportunity for mixed genders for those submarines.

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you think women should serve in all areas?

VAdm Greg Maddison: Indeed. If I can convey one message here, let me say—having just commanded the east coast navy—that six of our frigates and destroyers have mixed genders. All of our MCDVs have mixed genders. And I can tell you that one of the most effective operational ships that I have is a mixed gender ship.

It's a leadership issue. If you have the right people leading your ship's company, it doesn't make any difference at all whether you have men and women working together. One of my best ships in the navy is in fact a mixed gender ship. I'm very pleased with the way this has all developed in the last number of years.

Mr. Art Hanger: So the roles as seen by other nations like the United States, Israel and even Britain, where the combat roles, combat areas, the programs, have either diminished or have been removed completely, don't apply to Canada. You don't look at them in the same fashion?

VAdm Greg Maddison: Mr. Hanger, I can't comment on the policies of other nations. I can just tell you that in terms of this nation this policy works.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

A voice: You should ask him about General Pike.

• 1650

Mr. Art Hanger: I don't necessarily disagree with General Pike and I don't really mind saying so. I think he makes some good points and I think the military has every responsibility to examine him, especially if you're looking at social experimentation in the military. Is there room for it? I think that's the question to ask.

Is there room for social experimentation, Vice-Admiral?

The Chairman: We'll just leave it at that and go to Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Admiral, since a few of my questions have already been answered, perhaps this pay issue.... At this moment we have not compared the Canadian pay with the British, the American or the French as far as the navy goes. Did I read you right when you said that?

Cmdre Glenn Davidson: I can speak to that by way of example. Yes, we have collected some information over the years. As the admiral mentioned, a more formal and in-depth study is being done right now by by General Kinsman and his people. That will address pay comparability issues right now between Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and the U.K., I believe. It will be a broad—

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Overall, what do you think is the comparison? I know you can't get into the particulars, but—-

Cmdre Glenn Davidson: I can give you a representative example in absolute dollar terms. One of the things you have to do is look at initial net pay, and then the allowances and tax benefits that apply to that. On the surface of it, if you look at a Canadian sailor and an American sailor of equivalent rank regarding base pay, it appears that the Canadian sailor is substantially better paid. But if you consider the tax that is applied to the basic salary and then look at the two areas of sea duty allowance and accommodation allowance that could be applied to them, the American sailor comes out substantially ahead. So it's a complete reversal of the initial look at the salary.

The initial starting salary of a British sailor is substantially higher than either, but of course the cost of living is higher in the U.K. as well.

So the most direct example is with the Americans, and the American sailor takes home more.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay. With regard to the submarines, Admiral, you said that the British submarines were diesel rather than nuclear.

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Forgive my ignorance, but can you tell me the difference? Are there different capabilities because one is nuclear and one is diesel? Is there a preference in the navy industry worldwide?

VAdm Greg Maddison: First, nuclear-powered submarines are a lot more expensive than diesel-powered submarines. The advantage of nuclear-powered submarines is that they can stay under water for long periods of time, literally months. The defining factor there, quite frankly, is the amount of food you have on board. A diesel submarine, because of its requirement for air, can stay under water for three or four days but must come up to the surface to recharge its batteries. The power, the propulsion, is basically based on batteries. That actually allows you to be quieter than a nuclear-powered submarine. So there's a balance between being able to stay under water and away and undetected for long periods of time, and being a little noisier than a diesel submarine. Diesel submarines are very quiet, but you have to come up to periscope depth every three or four days.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay.

Coming from the field of business, when I want to buy a piece of equipment from someone, the petitio principii in it is why are these submarines for sale in England? Did they upgrade? They are relatively new—

VAdm Greg Maddison: Why are the British selling them?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Yes.

VAdm Greg Maddison: As I understand it, they decided they were going to focus in on their strategic capability, which meant they were going to retain only a nuclear-powered submarine capability.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay.

VAdm Greg Maddison: They did have a mixture of nuclear- and diesel-powered submarines, but they concluded that keeping both capabilities was too costly and decided they no longer wanted to have the diesel.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay. So they're selling off the diesel component of their submarine fleet.

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes, indeed.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay. That's fine.

• 1655

The Chairman: That's it?

Monsieur Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Going back to the issue of pay, when you answered an earlier question on pay, you made a comment that personnel serving at sea will often work about twice as many hours as people in civilian life. Were you insinuating that the pay should be based on the number of hours worked?

VAdm Greg Maddison: No, that's not what I was saying at all. I was just trying to provide comparability there, if you will, in terms of sailors who were in other fleets—such as the merchant marines, such as CN, such as the B.C. ferries—and the number of days they spend at sea compared to the number of days my sailors spend at sea. Quite frankly, for the same pay, my folks are there twice as long.

In terms of days at sea, I cannot apply the same policies as the others do because I need to keep my people doing the things they are doing, and I need to keep them trained to allow them to be at that capability to conduct our mission. I can't do the same sorts of policies that they have vis-à-vis five days at sea, then five days off, and so on. My only point was that my folks spend twice as long at sea for the same pay.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I know if you compare to a member of Parliament's staff, they're not there for the money. They don't get paid well, most of them. In fact, they work much longer hours than most people would work at a job—although I understand that in a lot of business, people work far beyond the hours that are normally expected. I think it's not an entirely different situation. Members of Parliament's staff often are there because they like the lifestyle and they like the excitement. There has to be some attraction like that for people to want to be in the navy, I think.

VAdm Greg Maddison: When you take a look at where we've been in the last five or six years, that old adage “Join the Navy, see the world” is there big time.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There is payment other than just the dollar.

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I just want to get into a different line. In 1994, the white paper stated that there was an urgent need for robust and capable new shipborne helicopters. When the minister was before this committee, it became very clear that we would not get shipborne helicopters before 2005. Just because of the way the budgeting works, when you put it together, it is not going to happen unless there's a total change in thinking on the part of government. Can you safely keep these Sea Kings operating until 2005?

VAdm Greg Maddison: I think the chief of the air staff, who is of course responsible for the air programs within the department, has concluded that this is indeed the case. Although it's going to take a lot of work by our people to maintain those aircraft in a safe and effective manner, we can continue to fly the Sea King fleet until—and I believe you're correct—the year 2005.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. In fact, I understand there are many Sea Kings in civilian service that have two or three times as many hours as some in military service, and they're still flying safely. Are you aware of that? Is that the case, or is that inaccurate?

VAdm Greg Maddison: I actually don't know if there are other Sea Kings out there flying for civilian agencies and that can go out there...did you say two or three times longer? In any event, they don't deal with the same sorts of conditions as we're dealing with vis-à-vis the salt water, the stresses and strains, in terms of landing and taking off from the flight decks of our ships. It's a little different scenario.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're saying that because of the difference in operation, the safe life of the military helicopters is in fact quite a bit less than—

VAdm Greg Maddison: I think it's correct to say that, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Vice-Admiral, if I remember correctly, there are two frigates that operate almost entirely in French: the Ville de Québec and the Montréal, I believe.

• 1700

Could you tell me if that has caused any problems for the Navy or if it is working out OK. I would like you to share any comments you might have on that subject with us.

[English]

VAdm Greg Maddison: Yes. In fact, you are correct. We do have Ville de Québec and Montréal. Ville de Québec is classified as a French-language unit, and 85% to 90% of the ship's company on board that ship are in fact francophones. The remainder of the ship's company are basically totally fluent anglophones.

They're stationed on the east coast of Canada, where of course we function with NATO. NATO has two official languages, both English and French.

Indeed, our ships have operated extremely effectively, whether they are a mixed gender unit, whether they're a French-language unit, whether they're an English-language unit. I think, from a cultural perspective, that many of our sailors enjoy being able to be posted to a ship where the social language, and indeed the working language, is their mother tongue. So that, from my perspective, has been a very positive step within our navy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I just have one last question for the person who hasn't had much to say this afternoon, Chief Petty Officer T. Meloche.

[English]

In the vice-admiral's presentation, he talked about pay and compensation, the reserves, housing. What else do you hear? What do the members tell you about other problems they are experiencing?

CPO Terry Meloche: The biggest ones, as you say, are pay and housing. We have child care, just like any other normal Canadians, but we're not like any other normal Canadians when we go away for three-quarters of the year. Child care right now is one of the bigger ones. Everyone is anxiously waiting to see if there will be a government program.

They would just like to have the same quality of life as the rest of Canada, or at least equal to those we are paid to protect.

Maybe you'll say that we have a very expensive lifestyle. The demands we put on our people.... As you just heard, we're not paid hourly—and we don't want to be paid hourly, mainly because the government couldn't even afford it. We'd have to have two crews on every ship.

That's not what they're after. It is recognition for what they do.

As I said before, everything we do is very expensive. It's because we put these demands on our people.

A Thursday night in a typical Halifax ship is not different now, with these newer ships, from what it was like when I was a young seaman. The chief would come down at about 3 a.m. and say, “We've got to get ready for dockyard tomorrow”. Of course at dockyard stays they get paid overtime, so he says, “You, you and you, you've got to stay tonight and get this generator ready”. “No problem, Chief”.

“Oh, I've got to go to the jetty to call my wife”. “Dear wife, pick up the kids. Never mind. I'll get home about 9.30. I'll take a cab. I'll get a pizza on the way home”. Everything that's just come out of my mouth is going to cost me money. There's no compensation for that.

There's no compensation, but as we said before, we're here not for the money but for recognition for what we do. That's what is on the sailors' minds.

Mr. David Pratt: When a ship pulls into port, let's say, and you've got some equipment on board that as Canadians we might be interested in selling to a foreign ally, presumably the officers and personnel on the ship have an opportunity to really strut their stuff as far as the foreign potential buyers might be concerned. What sort of impact does that have on the morale, and are we doing enough of it? Are we using our personnel to the best effect as an instrument of Canadian international trade?

• 1705

VAdm Greg Maddison: If I could just give you an example, which is quite frankly the extent throughout our fleets on both coasts, the ship Halifax is just completing a five-month deployment where she crossed the Atlantic and went over to Senegal, down to South Africa, across to South America, and up along the South American eastern seaboard, conducting operations throughout that deployment. But before she actually went on that deployment, a tremendous amount of work was done in liaison with various industries that have provided equipment and technology on board those sophisticated ships, such that whenever they went into a place for rest for the ship's company and maintenance, a number of industry reps would come over.

Our people—and I have to tell you our best spokespeople are our able seamen and our leading seamen, who use this equipment on a daily basis—are able to meet people in whatever port they are in and explain what this technology is all about and what it does for us. We have had a number of responses back that, as a direct result of supporting industry in this way, some significant sales have been achieved. We now do this on a regular basis.

It's important that, as a little piece of Canada whenever we go somewhere, we're able to showcase our capability and the technology that Canadians produce. Certainly the Canadian patrol frigates and the TRUMP destroyers are superb examples of that.

The Chairman: Monsieur Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I just thought I would indulge the committee and do a little damage control here. Earlier I made the statement that MPs' staff work for MPs because they like it. I want to retract that and say I have no idea at all why MPs' staff want to work for MPs.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like to thank you gentlemen for your presentation and for your answers today. I really appreciate the way you've presented yourselves.

VAdm Greg Maddison: It is indeed our pleasure, I can assure you. Thank you.

The Chairman: Vice-Admiral, I want to thank you and your staff for a very informative and helpful session this afternoon. Thank you very much.

VAdm Greg Maddison: Thank you.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.