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, December 4, 1997

• 0951

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good morning again, everyone. This is a continuation of the meeting we had last Tuesday, which was unfortunately postponed because of the vote. The general made his presentation and we were going to go to questions at the time.

I'm just wondering if anybody from the government side would like to start off the questioning.

Mr. Wood, I believe you have one question.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I have two or three for the general.

General, thanks for coming back, obviously on fairly short notice.

Lieutenant-General R.R. Crabbe (Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): I didn't have much choice, sir.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bob Wood: You're being kind.

As I understand it—and correct me if I'm wrong—your role as deputy chief of the defence staff is to plan and co-ordinate current and future operations for the Canadian forces. My question has to do with the impact of the recent downsizing on the abilities of the Canadian forces command to perform some of these tasks. Specifically, I guess I suspect that those under your command have a high degree of technical training. Has downsizing and competition with the private sector affected your ability to retain these quality personnel?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I'm not sure I understand your question.

Mr. Bob Wood: As you know, everybody has a high degree of technical training, and you're jobbing it out sometimes. I just wondered if that was a problem. Are you able to keep that technical training at a high level?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Certainly, in my view, the technical competence of Canadian sailors, soldiers, and airmen is second to none, and I say that very genuinely. Their ability to do those things that are asked and demanded of them...having been able to compare several nations when I was in Yugoslavia, and since then, I think the training we give our folks is superior to that of any nation I've worked with.

I believe one part of the question relates to our ability to maintain operations and sustain them, given the alternate service delivery and the “civilianization”, if you like, of some aspects of what the military is going through. The short answer to that is yes. I sit on the committees to ensure that from an operational point of view we are not going to degrade our ability to mount operations and then sustain them.

From an equipment point of view, I'll be very brief. I think it's fair to say that the navy surface ships, the new Canadian patrol frigates, the new MCDVs, are the best in the world. You're aware of the undersurface capability with our submarines. The current three will remain in service until...I think the year 2000 is the expiry date of the first one. And the Sea King helicopter continues to fly. It continues to be modified and is maintaining its operational capability and its airworthiness throughout its lifespan. Again, I think the projection is that it will be effective up until 2005.

From the air force point of view, the CF-18 is one of the best airplanes in the world. It's technically an extremely sophisticated airplane. I think it's fair to say that there was no doubt in anyone's mind that the service the air force provided in Aviano, with all the widgets and gadgets it brought into theatre, outperformed in some aspects. It was technically very good. It won the top gun award last year against the Americans, which is not an easy thing to do, of course.

• 0955

It's the army's turn in the window, if you like, for equipment. I think it's fair to say that the army needs its turn in the window. We're now starting to see some of the new series of armoured personnel carriers being introduced, starting with the Coyote, which is the reconnaissance vehicle. From what I am told and from what I've seen of it, it's probably the best in the world of its kind. For the first time in a long time I saw at Gagetown last year that soldiers and non-commissioned officers were very excited about a new piece of equipment that is probably the best in the world of its type.

The Leopard tank is being upgraded, as you're probably aware. We have one of the best anti-aircraft systems in the world, the ADATS, which is very sophisticated. We're about to receive a whole new series of communications equipment—the tactical command, control and communications system—for the army. The Clothe the Soldier project, which is a bit of a misnomer in the sense that it's more than clothing the soldier, is equipping the soldier with all the bits and pieces he needs to perform effectively.

All of the above indicates that in my view, yes we can do the jobs we are given to do by government. To go back to my presentation of a couple of weeks ago, from my experience with other nations, we have without question the best sailors, the best soldiers, and the best airmen in the world.

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't doubt that at all.

Many of the tasks performed at the headquarters of DND and at research facilities across the country obviously require highly skilled and educated people to perform the work. I could be wrong here, but my sense is that it has become necessary for DND to hire civilians to perform many of these tasks. To retain these people they have had to pay a comparable wage to the private sector. Often this is much higher than the wage paid to the officers and junior ranks who work alongside them. I would think this situation would cause resentment and damage morale.

What are your feelings on this issue? Is there anything that can be done to resolve this situation? The reason I ask that is that the father-in-law of a gentleman who works for me is in the armed forces and obviously makes a fairly good wage. He's an officer. They've hired somebody else to do the same job he does, working alongside him, and he makes a considerable amount more money than the enlisted guy. How is this affecting morale? Obviously it must have some kind of effect.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Within the research and development world, I think it's fair to say we have perennially relied on defence research scientists to perform those functions across the country, largely through the chief of research and development at the department of the Canadian forces.

I can't comment directly on the example you're quoting. I can only say that the attempt is always to get the best person for the best job, be he civilian or military. As quickly as I say that, I would say that obviously the balance here is a very delicate one. To go back to your first question, ensuring that we still maintain the operational capability of the forces means that folks in uniform are subject to the unlimited liability of the business we're in.

Mr. Bob Wood: I just have one more. I hesitate to ask this because this may be a very difficult question for you to answer. I hope you'll try to answer it in a frank manner.

I'm just curious as to what the attitude is within the office of the Chief of Defence Staff and the other force commanders towards the work of this committee. I know each service has their own plans for dealing with the challenges facing national defence and how they impact on personnel. You mentioned it in your opening remarks the other day, and I know the air force has their own plan and so does the navy. I just wonder, does the work we are doing here assist in that process or does it undermine ongoing efforts to react to the needs of the Canadian forces personnel?

• 1000

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I can't speak for the Chief of Defence Staff, but I will give you my views. The work SCONDVA is doing is absolutely complementary to what is going on in the army, navy, air force, and Canadian forces. I can tell you very frankly that I have heard nothing but good from soldiers through to generals in anticipation of what they hope SCONDVA will be able to do, if for no other reason than that at last someone is going to look at the social and economic aspects of the military, which is something we haven't done internally for some time.

This body, in my view, is the absolute correct body in which we need to look at that and come up with some answers to some pretty tough questions on compensations and benefits, how we look after our families, how we look after our soldiers, and what we should be providing for them. As General Baril put it, what should be the social contract between this country and its soldiers, sailors, and airmen? It's a very fundamental question.

From my experience, my personal view is this is absolutely critical to the Canadian forces. As I said in my address, that is so because the socio-economic atmosphere very directly impacts on the operational capability of the forces—absolutely and clearly directly. So the work SCONDVA is doing in this respect is critical. That's my view, and certainly, having been around the bazaars a fair bit, I've seen an expectation out there that SCONDVA this time—and when I say “this time”, I mean after the elections—once and for all is going to have a very thorough and global look at the issues on the table.

Mr. Bob Wood: I think you're right. I've certainly received lots of correspondence from enlisted personnel anticipating some changes. But I was just curious, because you people obviously have your own plan, maybe DeQuetteville has his “Flight Plan for Life”, and I just wondered how the work we're doing maybe could be married to that or whatever. I just wondered if there was any conflict; that's all.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: General DeQuetteville will be here this afternoon, and I think he'd be delighted to answer that very question. The navy and the army have similar plans, and I would suggest they are very complementary to the issues SCONDVA is dealing with.

Mr. Bob Wood: So this plan we came up with would override some of the other ones, do you think?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I'm not sure.

Mr. Bob Wood: Taking the good parts.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Well, I would hope we'd extract all the good parts from all of them, for sure. That's a very interesting question, and I think when General DeQuetteville is before you this afternoon and when General Leach is before you I'm not sure when, that would be a very good question to pose to them.

Mr. Bob Wood: You think I should ask them that?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I think it's a very fair question.

Mr. Bob Wood: I was just curious. I didn't know if I should ask it or if you could answer it or not. I was just interested.

Thanks a lot. I appreciate it.

The Chairman: Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Good morning, General.

I'd like to talk for a minute on the ASD, alternate service delivery. As you well know, on Base Petawawa, it seems to be a fairly contentious issue. As I come from the business world, conceptually I have no problem whatsoever with the alternative service delivery, other than that, as you well know, in some of the bases it has gone to one management group, for example the Black management group in Meaford. When it goes to something like that, General, the civilians who currently work on the base have a great deal of difficulty competing with them, because they're an all-encompassing management group.

What we have done in Petawawa—and it seems to have been done very successfully, and it's then easy to justify the result of some of this—is gone primarily to the carpenters, the plumbers, or the cleaners and broken it down some. I'm just wondering if that is the Zeitgeist or the mode you're going to take in the future with this ASD. As you know, it's a very contentious issue among the civilians on these bases. They can't compete. They don't have the wherewithal or the capacity to compete with the large group. I've talked to the base commander in Petawawa and I know so far that's the way it's being done. They're breaking it down into different units. On occasion an outside source was found and the local group that bid on it wasn't successful, but in another aspect they were.

• 1005

First, it promotes a bit of harmony in the local area and gives the civilians who are currently employed the opportunity to bid for it. Do you think we will continue to do it that way?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: As far as I know we will. However, I'm not an expert on ASD, by any means. Certainly the concerns you raise for the civilian component of DND, which is a very vital component, are very valid ones. The aspects of force reduction programs—I've forgotten what it's called on the civilian side, but there's a very similar program—have been put in place for those individuals.

ASD has a competitive nature and you're right that the folks serving inside DND cross several union bounds, so it is much more difficult for them to compete against organizations such as Black and McDonald.

The Deputy Minister, the Chief of the Defence Staff, and the senior staff are meeting with union leaders next week to discuss this very issue as we look at alternate service delivery for some of the key issues in the forces, with the aim of streamlining the costs to put that money up front for operations and equipment.

Your point is a valid one, for sure. I can only tell you there's a fair bit of effort going into ensuring the process is right and we are looking after the civilian components of DND. They're a very important element, as you've rightly stated.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: As I've said, General, conceptually I have no problem with it whatsoever, because there's such a thing as fiscal responsibility. Everyone must suffer a little bit of pain, or we must tighten our belts, there's no question about it, not just in the Department of National Defence but throughout the entire government structure.

I just want to reiterate the point that my preference as a federal member of Parliament who has a large base in his riding—and I'm sure others have bases too—would be to give the local people the opportunity to bid on it. If it goes to a large firm, such as Black and McDonald, it is practically a moot point. It is very difficult for them to bid against this company, because it would bid on all ASD, such as plumbing, heating, cleaning, and carpentry.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but at Base Petawawa that's the way we have been doing it. So far it's going unit by unit, which is working remarkably well. I've met with the local union people and I know some of them very well. I said, “Listen, there is the bid. You should be able to do it cheaper and more efficiently than anyone coming from the outside for the simple reason that you know what it takes to do that particular job.” They should be given that opportunity because if it's going to be all-encompassing for the entire CFB Petawawa, or another base, it's difficult for them to bid.

On the issue of economic partnership, again I stress my own local base. As you well know, Petawawa has its restaurants, the golf course, and other issues, and the base has let the private sector become involved.

I'm currently involved with the forestry institute, and I'm wondering what your feelings are on that. As you know, the PNFI is a tremendous facility. My preference would be for that to become some type of economic tourism so we could apprise ourselves of the value and beauty of that forest.

I know DND currently has ownership of that land, and I've no difficulty with that whatsoever, as long as it doesn't decide to start rumbling through it with tanks and eviscerating the forest, which is the oldest old-growth forest in Canada. General Baril stressed he would be very interested in economic partnerships because it's another source of income for the military.

I'm just wondering about your thoughts on that. Would you look favourably upon economic partnerships with the private sector, not only with regard to that forest but other partnerships too?

• 1010

LGen. R.R. Crabbe: I think I know the PNFI situation extremely well, having served there, as you well know. We took steps at that time—I believe it's still true—so that the only training done in there in fact is dismounted training, which is training on foot, I believe. It certainly was so a few years back.

Similar programs were established at other bases I'm familiar with. At Gagetown, for example, we have logging arrangements with local organizations. Again, I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs of them, but essentially those partnerships have been developed on other bases and have proven to be very successful.

As far as the other aspects, some of the recreational aspects you talked about, those programs are obviously going to have to continue. I would hope to answer your question specifically with respect to Petawawa that those things put in place over the last several years would remain.

I think you're referring to the golf course, camping grounds, beaches, and some of the other facilities that are there exactly for the benefit of the soldiers and their families. I hope they would remain and be accessible from the point of view of funding, meaning the cost to the soldier and his family, and so on. It would seem to me that's one aspect of the socio-economic environment that this committee would want to have a good, hard look at.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: With particular direction to the PNFI, as you already indicated, there have been some forestry practices on the base. I know this well because I participated in some of them about eight or ten years ago with my family business.

My concern is that someone, through the military, might take a look at that PNFI. There are millions and millions of dollars in there. I don't have to tell you that, with the white pine and red pine, they wouldn't try to eviscerate that forest. I know that in different geographical areas on Base Petawawa we have cut down the white and the red pine. I just don't want that touched if at all possible.

LGen. R.R. Crabbe: Being very familiar with the program and what you're saying, I would agree with that. From an economic point of view, I don't know. From an ecological point of view, I would hope, like you do, that it would remain.

The training there can be done very effectively without the destruction of the property. That has been an ongoing policy for some time in Petawawa, and I don't think that has changed. I agree with you. I hope it would stay.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: The only difficulty I do have now, General, is that before there was a rationale for not doing it because of the forestry institute. Now that the forestry institute is basically no longer there, my concern is that perhaps we'll get a directive some day such that, all of a sudden, I'll pick up the Pembroke paper and see a bid for the cutting of five million feet of white pine at the PNFI. I wouldn't want that to happen.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clouthier. I have a few comments and a couple of questions for you, General.

When you were talking about the Clothe the Soldier program, I just wanted to bring to your attention some of the comments I heard while I was in Bosnia. I heard it on two or three occasions. Some of the Canadian forces members were talking about the famous Gore-Tex jackets. Apparently, they were quite a hit over there.

The only problem was that once they left Bosnia, they had to leave their jackets there. I think that caused more problems—leaving their jackets there—than the food or whatever.

Are there plans in the future for issuing one jacket per Canadian forces member? Why did they have to leave them there when they left?

LGen. R.R. Crabbe: Part of the Clothe the Soldier program will address that very issue. The equipment we will issue to the soldier will be to every soldier. It will be, I believe, based on the Gore-Tex style of the Gore-Tex material.

• 1015

I think the issue right now is one of cost. They're terribly expensive, as you would appreciate. It's not just the jacket; it's the jacket, the underlining, the underclothes, the pants, and so on that go with that—and the boots. All this is very expensive. I believe it's in anticipation of the Clothe the Soldier program that rather than purchase it now and then duplicate it when the Clothe the Soldier program is put in place...it's a money-saving aspect, I believe.

I turned mine in when I left, and I understand exactly what you're saying.

The Chairman: It was funny, because on two or three occasions it was brought to my attention. I remember one gentleman telling me it would really boost morale if they were each issued jackets and were able to keep them.

I have a couple of questions on the health and welfare side of the coin. As you know, we started our review before the last election. We were on two or three bases and the same comment was coming back on each of the bases about CF members not wanting to report injuries because it would influence their career. We're putting the health of our members in jeopardy if they're not reporting it. I was wondering if you had heard the comment. If so, is there anything being done to alleviate their fears about this?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I don't want this to sound the way it's probably going to sound, but even when we had a force of 84,000, we were able to keep people around who had injuries they were perhaps not going to recover from, who were within striking distance of a pension. We tried to keep those folks around so that we could make sure they got over their 20-year period, or their 25-year period, so we could ensure they would be pensionable. We did that obviously for the purposes of looking after the soldiers, the sailors, and the airmen.

As we decreased the size of the forces we found that—it stands to reason obviously—the flexibility in being able to do this, in other words keep folks who simply cannot be deployed on operations for medical reasons, has decreased significantly. That I think is what has caused the angst. Whereas before we were able to handle a number of these, we no longer can because of our size and maintaining the commitments we have been through.

I have heard the same thing and I've discussed this with soldiers. Quite frankly, some of it is the macho kind of stuff that “I'm okay, I don't really need to go to the hospital”. More importantly, however, and I think it's the point you're driving at here, is that what we certainly do not want to do is jeopardize the health of the soldiers. That is for sure.

I know they have been encouraged, notwithstanding injuries, to make sure they do in fact report them to the medical authorities. It's essential they do that. The balance between that and this lack of flexibility or less flexibility in retaining them if they are injured on a permanent basis is a very difficult one. I don't want this to sound cold and callous, but you'd appreciate that the operations of the Canadian forces must come first.

The Chairman: The other comment I'd like to make is this. We've all seen in the newspapers in the last week or two CF members suing the department and the Canadian government for not taking adequate care of them when they're on duty in Bosnia and they happen to be victims of accidents or whatever.

• 1020

Is there something that can be done to prevent incidents like that happening in the future? Because we're all politicians here. Coming from a small town, people know.... In my case, for instance, I sit on the national defence committee. People will come up and ask, “How can you let something like this happen?”

There must be some other factors or reasons behind what went on, but just the fact that these stories are getting out there I don't think helps the image of the force at all. I don't know if a program should be instituted with Anciens combattants, or Veterans Affairs, to head off these incidents before they reach the national media.

Your comment.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I don't know whether General Kinsman, when he was in front of the SCONDVA, addressed that issue, or how the issue is being addressed, but essentially it is a much closer relationship with Veterans Affairs, through some committees. But that is not the complete answer to the problem.

I would agree with you 100% that we did not do very well in looking after those individuals. In fact, in some cases in which I was personally involved we did a damn poor job.

I would use the case of Corporal Tommy Anderson, who now lives in Channel-Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, as an example. He left Yugoslavia less his legs, which were blown off in a mine accident. When he came back, I think it would be fair to say he was well looked after, medically and emotionally and psychologically. Certainly within the regiment, if I can be a little bit parochial, he was well taken care of.

He then got into the pension stuff, dealing with Veterans Affairs and National Defence and compensation and benefits, all the bureaucracy, trying to settle that aspect of his life at a very difficult time, obviously. He was at the same time going through...prosthesis, etc.

There was a gap there when we let him down. It shouldn't have happened, but it did. I then picked up that aspect of it when I was serving in Halifax. I made contact with Corporal Anderson and managed to pick up the pieces and get it all squared away, but there was a time when we did not look after that very well.

Similarly with Major Bruce Henwood. We let him down. We should have done better—could have done better—but didn't.

There are some other examples of individuals who fell into the same category, where we should have done better. I think we are now doing better. We have always prided ourselves in looking after our troops, yet in some of these cases, when the troops needed our help the most, they didn't get it. We're not very proud of that.

I would only say that I am fairly confident, with the changes that are being made and that have been made and put in place, we will get much better at it. In my view it is, without question, the issue we should be dealing with on the personnel side.

The Chairman: I'm going to ask you to speculate on this. At one time Veterans Affairs and National Defence were in the same department, I guess.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: With the same minister.

• 1025

The Chairman: The same minister?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Always.

The Chairman: Maybe that was just one of the problems. The right hand did not know what the left hand was doing. I'm just making a comment to you. Maybe the ties should be a lot closer, and maybe there should be a lot more working closely together to make sure these things don't happen again. I'd like your comment on that. Do you think we could suggest that the two departments merge?

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I don't know, Mr. Chair, but if I could make a suggestion to you, their services involve those who were in the military and were transferred. Once the case is wound up at the Department of National Defence, it is transferred to Veterans Affairs, and they specialize in the kind of things that would be there. To put that kind of marriage together...you would be sitting in there with a lot of things that would be cumbersome, I would say, to the operational side of running the Department of National Defence. The other is a support operation for those who have been injured and receive some benefits, pension, and training.

I think they're complementary, but they're not supportive, one to another. One would be sort of out of the range of what the Department of National Defence is all about.

The Chairman: I understand what you're saying, but it seems to me that in some cases the members who need it most are caught in the middle. They are caught in a no man's land, like some of the cases that we were just talking about a while ago. If there were only some way to make sure that when something does happen to one of our members, whether it's in Canada or elsewhere, that there is somebody or some organization there to help him along. If he's under DND for a while and he has to transfer to Veterans Affairs, he has enough to worry about with his health problems. If there were only some way to make sure he doesn't have to worry about the administrative side of it. That's the only thing I want to suggest.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Mr. Chairman, you're absolutely right. I think it's fair to say that's where we have encountered a lot of the difficulty; that is, asking a soldier to try to deal with bureaucracy when he's going through the psychological, emotional, and medical difficulties I've just described is asking a hell of a lot of him. He doesn't understand the bureaucracy, nor do the rest of us until we get involved in it, I would suggest. That transition from the Department of National Defence to Veterans Affairs, when the crossover takes place, and again I'm talking a little out of ignorance here—at some stage, when the pension aspect of this kicks in, that is what is absolutely critical, in my view.

When we look at Corporal Anderson and Major Henwood, that's where I think we would find that the difficulty really started to kick in. That's what we need to make sure of. From the time the individual is injured until the time the individual is resettled in every way—psychologically, emotionally, medically, and financially—we owe it to that individual to make damn sure that before we let him or her loose, he or she has been looked after in every possible way.

I'm not sure, to be honest with you, where the division of responsibilities lies between the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs in that regard. That shouldn't be a concern to a soldier who's injured. That should be a concern to us, the senior leadership. It should be our concern to make sure we put in place the wherewithal to ensure that the transition from one to the other is absolutely transparent to that individual. From my personal experience, I would like to think that's very high on the hit list of items this committee would be assisting with.

• 1030

Mr. John Richardson:

[Editor's Note—Inaudible]...that we should pin down. I think there is a transition period between the last pay cheque from Defence and the first pay cheque from Veterans Affairs, and I think there is some kind of liaison with Veterans Affairs. I don't know how strong that is, but we had that kind of a discussion when Veterans Affairs was here two years.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure how strong that relationship is. I don't want to leave committee members with the impression that nothing's been done here. There's been a lot done. There's a lot more to be done.

A lot's been done in ensuring that we don't have gaps in looking after these individuals. Booklets have been produced for the individuals, but that doesn't solve the problem. The problem is making sure that everything is completely transparent under those awful, terrible conditions that the individual is going through, in order to make sure that we resettle him as best we can.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Bob, and then John.

Mr. Bob Wood: General, in your own personal view, how would you set it up so that it would run smoothly? Obviously, you've said certain things have taken place. You're an experienced, highly ranked, very respectable general in the armed forces, so how would you do that? You must have some ideas that you could maybe give to this committee.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: It's very simple. When an individual gets injured, or when an individual has encountered some kind of medical problem that requires the kinds of things I've just described, it is my view that someone needs to be appointed to look after him from that moment until the time that individual is being properly cared for. That's it.

Mr. Bob Wood: Someone who takes him through all the steps and all—

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Yes, someone who takes him through all the steps to ensure that he's looked after psychologically, emotionally, and medically, and then financially, with pensions, compensations, benefits, and all the other things; who explains to him in a soldier's terms what he is entitled to and how he gets it; and who actually goes to get it for him. That's what we should be doing.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are there no case workers like that operating now?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: There certainly are, but I don't know—and I'm saying this out of ignorance again—whether we have sufficient numbers. I'm not sure we haven't been very good at transiting right through the whole process, despite the best efforts of some very fine folks who in fact look after these issues.

That would be my view on how it should be done. Again, I go back to what some in the room would certainly understand as the regimental system and its responsibility in that respect, certainly for the combat arms, in ensuring that individuals within our own regiments are looked after in that respect. We shouldn't be passing this poor individual off from one person to another as he recovers and goes through the process.

That may be difficult to do, but given the circumstances, I think it's the fair thing to do, the right thing to do for the individual.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are there enough trained personnel in the armed forces to do that? This person would have to be pretty well rounded, this case worker.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I can't answer the question on whether we have those individuals. We certainly have staff who are very much aware of these things, but I think General Hug could answer the question better than I. We have staff who understand that process, but when we're dealing with the individual in Petawawa or in Gagetown or in Edmonton, Alberta, we need someone right there who can take his concerns and the family's concerns and see them right through to complete recovery.

Mr. Bob Wood: I was just going through your remarks, and I noticed that you talked about the reserves for a second. I'd like to come back to that for an opinion.

• 1035

You say that obviously they've turned to reserves to make up the shortfall. They've done very well, but they've also had to face horrific situations, in your words. I want to ask the question, and it's here. It says “Do we have the right programs in place for our reserve personnel?” Do we?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: That's a short question but a very lengthy answer. Let me try to be brief.

First of all, let me say that the reservists who worked in all the operations we've been involved with over the past several years have done an outstanding job. They're good, young Canadian citizens who when called upon have done their duty and have done it extremely well.

The difficulty we've faced with some of the reservists is really a geographic question, if you like. When we mount an operation we try to get them in from the local provinces, a couple of provinces, perhaps. But from time to time they've come from across the nation, joined that unit and trained with that unit for four or five months. They go off for six months, they come back, and then they go back to their home station, which often is away from that unit. They could be training in Petawawa, for example, and have come from Stephenville, Newfoundland.

Now the individual is back in Stephenville, Newfoundland, kind of on his own, whereas the folks in Petawawa have each other to talk about some of the awful things they had to do and some of the awful things they saw. The poor reservist doesn't have that nicety. We've overcome that to a certain extent by bringing him back to that unit and keeping him with that unit for a while after the operation. But he doesn't have access to the family resource centre, to the facilities that would be available to his regular force counterpart on that particular base. That has been a difficulty that we have overcome to a certain extent but not completely.

We've come a long way in the compensation and benefits aspect for the reservists. Again, I think I'm correct in saying that he gets exactly the same as his regular force counterpart when he participates in these kinds of operations. As far as the training and the preparation is concerned, the reservist is just as ready and just as prepared by the time he's finished that pre-deployment training as his regular force counterpart. As I said, they do a wonderful job.

Mr. Bob Wood: It's the after....

LGen R.R. Crabbe: It's the aftermath that has been a difficult issue to deal with.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chairman: John.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly want to thank you, General, for your presentation. It's typical of yourself. It's very straightforward and it hits a lot of points in a short period of time.

We would like to focus on the quality of life and increase it substantially. We had a chance to view some of it last year, but we were cut short by the election. What we saw wasn't all that great: people living in PMQs and room sizes that wouldn't be acceptable to the general public in any subdivision today. And we've seen other areas where there were first-rate operations going on in the bases, community centres, child day care centres, and all kinds of things to sustain the family while a unit may be off posted overseas in one of the operations they've been detailed for.

We did notice in our work with the soldiers that they're all looking for some monetary compensation as well. You know the risks. Today going out to Bosnia is risky. It's risky from a thousand different points of view, even though they may not be fired on on a regular basis. We're looking at that, but it's also the intermittent posting, which is, when you're young it's great to get over to Bosnia and experience that, but I guess if you had to hit the third trip to Cyprus or something like that, it gets a bit ho-hum after a while and you wonder why. We have to look at that.

I was hoping that I would see in some of the bigger operations a more comprehensive approach. They were comprehensive, but they were comprehensive and relative 30 years ago. The facilities they were living in, what they inherited, were big bases. They were comprehensive and relative, but the facilities for accommodation were out of touch with today's young people and their expectations of what they'd live in if they got married, for example.

• 1040

I want to say that we will be looking carefully at the monetary aspect, the reward for service in a financial way. We should also be looking at having our soldiers and their wives or their husbands, as the case may be, live in the same kind of conditions one would find in mainstream Canada from coast to coast. We will be looking at that very carefully.

We have a big job ahead of us to try to hit all the places, and we plan to get to them all, as the chairman has laid out in the schedule for our tours.

I want to ask you one thing. I personally like what I've seen, although it hurts the roots of some of the regiments to have been dislocated. I'm referring to the big base concept near a training area that's readily accessible vis-à-vis the Petawawa situation.

As the commander in charge of operations and a former commander in the army, do you agree with the big base concept as it is deployed now?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: I do from the point of view of operational capability. Again, I grew up in the west and did most of my service out there, as you know. There was the engineer regiment in Chilliwack, the artillery regiment in Shilo, and an infantry battalion in Winnipeg, one in Calgary, and one in Victoria, British Columbia, I guess, spread out across the nation for a whole bunch of very good national reasons. But to be parochial from an operational perspective, it was always difficult to get those folks together to do training, not just the once a year kind of summer concentration of eight weeks of training; any other training throughout the year was always very difficult.

When you look at what we have now from an army perspective, with all the elements in Edmonton close to Wainwright, all the elements in central Canada in Petawawa, and all the elements in Quebec in Valcartier, that makes training and operations much easier, as you would appreciate. From that point of view I fully agree with it.

I believe, however, that there's a danger that we need to be careful of here. Without being overly dramatic, as we have withdrawn onto those bases, we have withdrawn from certain segments of Canadian society, in which case we're no longer exposing society to their armed forces. I would say very quickly that therefore in my view the reserves and certainly the militia have a greater role to play in that respect, to maintain roots in the community across this nation.

That would be my view of it with respect to the big bases. Certainly from an economic point of view, again I would only surmise that if you close several and collapse them onto one, economically that has to be viable, too. That was really at the roots of the closures some time ago when we first started the process.

Mr. John Richardson: I have one other question that may be operational. Is the doctrine for our forces still based on an operational division that comes together periodically to practise a professional craft in a divisional operation such as you used to do with the RVs, or are we operating on brigade group concentrations only now?

LGen R.R. Crabbe: We are maintaining our doctrinal basis based on the division. Our training at the staff college and our training of officers, our training of the leadership, is all done within a divisional context, for all the reasons you would know well.

• 1045

The practicality of that is in fact that we operate at the brigade group level for exercise purposes and operational purposes. Indeed, the highest level of our operational commitment on the army side is the Op SABRE Brigade Group, which is a fairly large brigade group. That's the highest level of commitment. But we do maintain the division headquarters in Kingston, as you know, with its signals capability and so on, to be able to maintain that art and maintain the capability to react internally with some of our Canadian defence requirements, plus our North American defence requirements with the United States.

So certainly our training is always in the context of the division, but the highest level at which we practise that in reality is at the brigade group level. That has essentially always been the way we've done it. We've done it very well, except with the sequence of RV or Rendez-Vous series of exercises you're referring to. We haven't done that for some time, and I don't believe the army plans to do it at least for the next couple of years.

Mr. John Richardson: I only say that because I see the navy getting together in large numbers off either coast and the air force trying to get into larger group exercises. I wonder if somehow moneys could be set aside so the army could exercise at the level of general practices.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: With the high operational tempo of UN operations over the past several years, of course, we have had to set that aside in the interests of mission-specific training, as you would appreciate. Starting this next training year, in April, those kinds of operations, exercises, will be re-emphasized; that is, the battle group-, brigade group-level exercises. Indeed, the army has been granted extra funds to get them back into that war-fighting capability, war-fighting business, at those levels.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Godin, do you have a question?

Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): It isn't a question, but rather a comment. Since I just arrived, I haven't familiarized myself with this file yet. I'd simply like to say that I very much appreciate your presentation, even though I only heard a small part of it, and the interest that there seems to be for this issue. As a member of Parliament, on five or six occasions, I was faced with such a problem in my riding. Soldiers who had been injured and had left the forces were unhappy with the way they had been looked after. Furthermore, they seemed to be saying that as soon as they found a job, people tried to fire them, to let go of them.

When I tried to follow up on those files as a member of Parliament, it became extremely difficult, and I understand why now. If you have a hard time finding out who is doing what in the forces, it is even harder for a member of Parliament.

I think it's interesting that we'd want to work on this part of the issue, because we often come across such cases in our ridings: soldiers who were injured, left the forces and are left with practically nothing. They are particularly unhappy with the services made available to them, and there is nothing we can do to be of assistance.

That's the comment I wanted to make. I support you 100% on this.

LGen R.R. Crabbe: Thank you, sir. Before you came in, I explained that, in my view, the most important thing was the lesson we learned with regard to the soldiers who are injured in an operation and how the senior leadership of the Canadian forces needs to look after their well-being. I agree with you that it is absolutely essential.

• 1050

The Chairman: To stress what Mr. Godin said, I also feel that it would be in your interest to improve the situation. I think it was general Baril who, when he spoke before the committee, referred to a social contract between government and the Armed Forces. We could add an appendix to that social contract.

Thank you very much, General.

The meeting is adjourned.