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]

Tuesday, January 27, 1998

• 0821

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Good morning, everyone. Before we get on our way this morning, I believe Admiral Moore has a few words to say.

Rear Admiral Russell Moore (Commander, Maritime Forces Pacific (MARPAC), Canadian Armed Forces): Chairman Bertrand, members of SCONDVA, members of the military community, navy family and all our friends, I have just two roles this morning. One is to officially welcome this very important committee to Maritime Forces Pacific.

Yesterday they had a day at sea in HMCS Vancouver in transit between Vancouver and Victoria, and they had an opportunity to see just a little bit of what life at sea is about and what our ships and aircraft do for the people of Canada.

Last night, as you have no doubt heard if you've listened to this morning's media and read the Times Colonist, we had an excellent session. This morning I know that will continue. Although there are a few senior officers present and there was initially some concern that there might be some reluctance to step up to the microphone and tell the committee your concerns and the issues that confront you, we found out last night that there was no need to have such concerns, and I know you'll do the same this morning.

With that, I would like to thank you again for coming forward this morning. The committee is here to listen to you. This is your opportunity.

Mr. Chairman, the meeting is yours.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I would like to mention that we have seven or eight speakers on this morning and, because of time constraints, I'll have to watch the time allotments a little more closely. We will proceed in the same manner as last night. People will make their presentations, and if members of the committee have any questions, they will ask them after the presentation has been made.

• 1125

[Translation]

For those who need interpretation, receivers are available close to the door.

We are going to proceed exactly like last night. Witnesses will come to the front and make their presentations and if members have questions to ask, they will do so afterwards.

[English]

Now I would ask Mrs. Myrna Borleske to come forward and make her presentation.

Mrs. Myrna Borleske (Past President, Victoria Chamber of Commerce): Good morning, everyone; and may I thank you all for allowing me the opportunity to speak about a very important segment of our community, the military personnel who work, volunteer, reside, and make many more contributions to the greater Victoria area.

Over the past several years I have had the privilege of attending numerous functions with military personnel, ours as well as those of other countries from around the world. My view is that we should be very proud of the calibre of people in our forces and always remember that these people are our ambassadors wherever they travel on our behalf.

Having spent this time talking with and observing this well-trained, articulate group of people, who have the same needs as the larger community, I was extremely disappointed to learn of the difficulties facing them and their families because of the financial challenges. When young men and women are away from home and families serving their country, we must ensure morale is not weakened through financial concerns that are not of their own making. In these times of cutbacks and restraint, we must be certain the people who are our defenders, as well as peacekeepers to the world, are paid well enough to have a reasonable standard of living. We cannot expect people to give their full attention to the task at hand when their energy is spent on financial concerns.

A community is healthy when there is an educated workforce, low unemployment, and low welfare rolls. The military brings the first two to our community, but if salaries and benefits are too low, they must fall back on welfare, just as other parts of the community do. This is demoralizing as well as disgraceful, and very costly to the general community.

However, there are solutions. For example, the diplomatic service offers their members a cost of living allowance that brings their standard of living up to or closer to the local economies in which they reside. This should be offered to our military at all levels, since they do not get to choose where they live; and when in high-cost areas such as our own, they should have a living allowance that brings their income in line with our local cost of living.

We, who spend millions of dollars in peacekeeping throughout the world, should make certain our military are treated with respect and dignity. That includes paying them a reasonable salary. I don't think they can expect any less.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.

I now call on Mr. Cedric Steele.

Mr. Cedric Steele (Individual Presentation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you very much indeed for giving me this opportunity to appear before your committee.

I want you to know that Myrna Borleske has been president of the chamber of commerce in this community. She has been very concerned about the military. I too was president of the chamber of commerce, in 1980. So both of us have been involved in this community for a very long time.

I am a local businessman. I am in the real estate and golf industry. I have been involved in this community in various projects and community service for the last 25 years. I've had the privilege of being an honorary captain in the Canadian navy for the last year. I have had an opportunity to meet with the many men and women of our navy, both in our ships and ashore.

• 1130

In my discussions with men and women in the armed forces, it appears that the largest concern they have is the financial future they face, not only now but also upon retirement.

In the civilian sector, in addition to pensions, retirement savings plans and so on that civilians can accumulate, generally the largest asset that a civilian has when they retire is their principal residence. Because of the numerous moves that the armed forces personnel face, they rarely live in a community long enough to acquire a permanent residence and retain that residence for their retirement years. The largest portion of wealth accumulation in most people's portfolio is their principal residence, and the fact that they can dispose of that residence on a tax-free basis assists most civilians in looking after their retirement years.

I believe that we should look at the housing issue for our armed forces in an imaginative and creative way. For example, in this community there is a lot of crown land that currently is not being used. My suggestion is that we create a non-profit housing organization—or a self-help housing organization, if you wish—to assist in providing affordable housing to military personnel.

For example, I would suggest that after we form such a non-profit organization, various properties could be investigated to see whether they would be suitable for building housing units. The properties investigated should be considered, and if found suitable, there should be areas for single-family housing, duplexes, fourplexes, and multi-unit buildings.

The non-profit association should attempt to obtain a 66-year land lease from the Crown. Therefore the lands would not be alienated, as the houses and property would revert to the Crown at the end of the lease. The association would then enter into subleases, for the same term less a day, with the potential users of the property.

I believe that CMHC will provide 95% financing to first-time home buyers, and 90% financing to buyers who have purchased a house in the past.

There is a unique opportunity now, seeing that interest rates are at very low levels. For example, if a 1,200-square-foot house was built on a strata lot at $75 per square foot, the cost would be $90,000. With a down payment of 5%—this would be $4,500—the balance would then be financed over a 25-year amortization with a 6.5% interest rate as an example, and the monthly rate would be $572 per month. Additionally, a reasonable land lease payment could be made of, say, $125 per month. Therefore the cost of accommodation would be very reasonable to the now owner of the property, and they would be building up an equity so that the property would be without debt at the end of 25 years.

At the end of that period the property could be rented out to other military personnel for a reasonable income to the owner, or the remainder of the lease could be sold to a new buyer.

In a similar fashion, townhouses, condominiums, and duplexes could be built. Obviously one would start with a small project in order to determine the viability of such a project.

There is a considerable interest in this idea from our community at large—I've had some discussions with people—because many jobs would be created in our community for people in construction and related fields.

This project will achieve many objectives, including supplying equity for our armed forces personnel when they retire. The Crown will benefit, as these houses will revert to the Crown at the termination of the lease. Also, I believe that the lower cost of accommodation will assist the personnel to make their time of service on this coast more affordable.

In the event that the property occupants are transferred to the east coast, the association could assist in renting the property to cover the costs of the mortgage and the land rent and possibly a little surplus, and a small management fee could be charged to defray costs by the non-profit organization.

• 1135

I sincerely hope that you will consider this one idea as part of a group of creative ideas that I believe could be brought forward by people interested in having the men and women of our armed forces enjoy the quality of life that we, their civilian counterparts, enjoy in our community.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. That's quite an interesting idea.

Mr. Cedric Steele: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Any questions from the panel? Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): That may indeed be a good idea, but I wonder how the population will react when they learn that we are planning to build something here whereas facilities are being closed elsewhere, as is the case in Saint-Hubert. What do you think of that and how could you justify such a thing?

[English]

Mr. Cedric Steele: Thank you for the question, Madam.

I believe that we should look at housing across Canada and try to use any housing that becomes available for other potential users. Similarly, in the civilian world today many people on retirement income are finding it very difficult to make ends meet. I do believe that we should bring the military and the civilian world closer together, so that if there is a base being closed or accommodation being made available, we should see if there's a way a retirement community could be built in that location.

I understand your concern, and definitely I would not expect favouritism for people on the west coast. This idea that I propose I would like to see started in British Columbia or here in Esquimalt, and if it works I would like to see it used for all army, navy, and all types of personnel. So I think it's just an idea that should be used for all the armed forces.

Your question I think is a valid one. When one is concerned about bases being closed, I think these bases should be made available to the civilian community again on a land-lease basis where retirement people can live on those bases.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Cedric Steele: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Mrs. Friessen, please.

Mrs. Anne Friessen (Individual Presentation): Good morning. My name is Anne Friessen, and I am here this morning to discuss the issue of pay and allowances from my perspective. I'm the wife of Able Seaman Anthony Harvey Friessen, who is a member of the HMCS Protecteur ship's company.

My coming this morning before this panel concerns the recent pay adjustments that we received in December 1997. The specific reason for this presentation is to point out the net result of the pay raise. The pay raise as at December 31, 1997, reflects an after-deduction increase of $27.04. This was further increased in January 1998 due to adjustments to the CPP and the EI deductions to reflect a net increase of $31.90. The $31.90 pay raise will be further offset in 1998 by two factors as follows:

(1) Triple A adjustments. The recent adjustment for personnel living outside the PMQs was a decrease of 15%. If this trend holds true for PMQ residents, then our pay raise will be reduced by $23 per month before taxes. The net result would be a reduction of $13.82, which brings the pay raise to $18.08 per month.

(2) PMQ rent increase. The PMQ rent increase for 1998 has yet to be approved by Ottawa. But based on last year's increase of $5.36, this would reduce the pay raise to $12.72 per month.

• 1140

As an additional comment, all the pay adjustment did was help my husband's quality of life aboard ship: $76 monthly pay less mess dues equals $66 equals $33 per day, and in U.S. funds that's $20 when in a foreign port, for example San Diego. There was no change to the amount of cash available for any household funds.

Other considerations that should be noted are the increased deductible of $60—from $40 to $100—for our health plan, which has further reduced the net available income for our household expenses. These monthly expenses.... I have an attached sheet here, and I'll read them off: food, $200; hydro, $30; gas, $70; cable, $35; car insurance, $65; medical, $50; computer loan, $195; credit card, $100; clothing, $100; entertainment, if we can afford it, $50. The total monthly expenses come to $900. Our net income for the month of January 1998 is $966.82. If we pay home insurance and life insurance, there's nothing.

These expenses have increased significantly over the past year and they are expected to continue increasing in 1998. It has also been strongly recommended that we purchase some life insurance, which would cost approximately $50 per month, as I quoted, as well as a form of health insurance, which we haven't been able to afford in two years and which costs approximately $20 per month. These necessary insurances, which are vital, are expenses that we cannot afford at our present income level.

In effect, the rate does not substantially offset the cost of living increases that we have experienced or expect to experience in the coming year. My question for this panel is how does the Government of Canada expect the members of the military to exist in today's economic market when at the end of the day the 1997 pay adjustments net only $12.72 per month in 1998?

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Any questions? Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast): What do you do when an emergency crops up?

Mrs. Anne Friessen: I borrow from one of the other bill payments.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm sorry...?

Mrs. Anne Friessen: As my husband says, I borrow from one bill to pay another bill. If we have a medical emergency—and I do have a medical problem—and if I have to get out a new prescription that costs us more than an old prescription, I would borrow from my B.C. Telephone bill or my credit card payment. It would get left, and then I'd have to make it up the next month. We barely have anything to live off.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is there any form of assistance the military offers in an emergency situation?

Mrs. Anne Friessen: You can apply for a loan in an emergency, which we have already applied for. That you have to pay off in a month and you can't apply for another one. We couldn't afford to apply for another, even if we could.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Chair, for people who are speaking from notes, perhaps they could provide them to the clerk. There's some detail in those comments, and I think we'd like to capture all of that to have it available for the report.

The Chairman: Would it be possible for you to give the clerk your speaking notes?

Mrs. Anne Friessen: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any more questions? No?

Thank you very much, Mrs. Friessen.

Mrs. Anne Friessen: Thank you.

• 1145

The Chairman: Next, Corporal G.H. Berard.

Corporal G.H. Berard (Individual Presentation): Good morning. I'm Gwen Berard. I'm a corporal at the base construction engineering office here in Esquimalt. I've been in the service for sixteen years, nine and a half in communications and seven as a construction engineering procedures technician, and now I've been amalgamated into the new resource management trade.

I've been a single parent for seven years, since my divorce. I have two children, age seven and a half and two and a half; and I'm obviously expecting another one this spring. My concerns are solely family oriented—the family occupies 100% of my non-working time—and financial aspects which limit our quality of life and our access to our standard of living.

About our financial concerns, before my posting to Esquimalt I was posted in Chilliwack. I owned my own home and could afford small holidays and camping trips with my children. I'm now residing in a PMQ with no basement or storage space and I rent a garage for storage purposes. I can't afford camping.

My disposable income is spent on food or commuting costs. I'm unable to add to my down payment for my next home or to plan for my eventual retirement.

My mortgage in Chilliwack, including taxes, heat, and hydro, was under $700 a month. I lived less than three kilometres from the base. It was very convenient. I now pay $706.93 per month, plus hydro and oil, with no long-term benefit, for a PMQ that falls below the B.C. social housing standard.

Bread available on the mainland was 69¢ a loaf. Here in Victoria, if you find it on sale, it's $1.09 or more. Everything is more expensive in Victoria—everything.

Triple A is a very important benefit to those of us in the military posted out to areas of expensive economies, but it does not cover the complete range of economic impact on a family. It's not available to those who purchase homes, so it really discourages people from buying a home and investing in their futures.

Economy adjustment pay that addressed more than simply housing would overcome a lot of these difficulties. I don't know how many people here realize it, but a senior officer receives a higher triple A allowance or accommodation assistance allowance than a private. The people on the lowest end of the pay scale receive the smallest amount of housing assistance.

Triple A is provided for maternity leave, but when you start your parental leave at the end of your maternity leave it is cut off. A top-up of wages that is paid to military members on maternity leave is also cut off at the end of maternity and the start of parental leave. You do your last weeks of time home with your child with 30% less pay.

On family-related concerns, I'm a single parent. That means I have no spouse with whom I share child-rearing beliefs and duties. In order to work I hire a stranger to take care of my children throughout the day. If I'm tasked to an unaccompanied position overseas, in Quebec, in Winnipeg—anywhere in Canada or the world—I must leave my children completely in the care of strangers, sometimes in the stranger's home.

In addition, one of my children has neurological problems, which means he has several types of seizure. I cannot hire just anyone off the street. I need someone with medical knowledge.

In the 1996-97 leave period I took 17 of my 25 days of annual leave for the sole purpose of taking my children to medical appointments. DND employees are able to take their leave in 15-minute increments. Military members must take it in full-day increments. An ability to take it in a half-day increment would really assist us in saving our leave for its mainly intended purpose of time off.

When returning to work after childbirth, a member has a child less than six months in age. The Canadian and American pediatric societies recommend that children be nursed for a year. My greatest fear upon returning to work is being tasked away from my child for course or deployment. I may face career action in trying to provide proper nutrition and antibodies against disease and illness for my child and to save my family a further $150 a month for the cost of formula.

About a year ago there was an announcement that single parents could claim child care in certain circumstances. I have not seen the eligibility for this clearly spelt out. I have attempted to claim this under numerous different circumstances and have always been told they were not eligible.

• 1150

Also, why are married service members with civilian or military spouses excluded from this benefit? By offering the benefit only to single parents, it seems assumed that the spouse is expected to be at the beck and call of the Canadian Forces should the military require the duties of the service member.

Should I be deployed, my children will require 24-hour care. It's legislated in B.C. and across Canada that child care workers should be paid a minimum wage. Out here that's $7 an hour, and it is soon to be going to $7.15 an hour. You also pay time and a half, double time, holiday pay, benefits, and taxation. Regular child care is $1,232 a month. If I'm tasked away, it will be three times that amount; otherwise I'm leaving my children with one care giver for longer than the legally allotted amount of time. That's nearly $4,000 a month in child care. My gross pay is $3,200.

A fear that daily affects my quality of life is separation from my preschool-age children. I understand the military concept of “not deployable, not employable” in theory, but I would very happily accept frequent postings to less appreciated posting areas that permit contact with my children than to have a current manager tell me that she is going to send me to sea within a year of giving birth so that she can keep me in Esquimalt.

Upon posting, a service family is expected to have a compliant spouse who will assist with driving across the country, mediating fights with children, and taking turns keeping the kids busy in the hotel rooms at night. Try doing it solo. After arrival, the spouse begins the unpack arrangements at home and then provides for child care before seeking their own employment. Single parents do not have this ability. We arrive. We need child care before the movers arrive, because you've never seen children running through a house with packers there. Then we supervise the unpack, arrange our homes, press our uniforms, make sure we have permanent day care, and show up for work eager and ready to move on to our next duty. It's a tough call.

It's really hard to go to your boss and say, “I've been here for three days, but I need an extra day off so I can manage to get my kitchen organized so I can make breakfast in the morning”. He'll look at you and say, “You're asking for special favours as a single parent”. There is no prescribed amount of time given for the number of days prepared for an unpack.

I'll very quickly run over some genuinely systemic concerns. A medical category required for pregnant members takes a full day to put on and to take off. When you're four months pregnant and already showing, they need to certify that you really are pregnant. It takes a full day. They test your hearing, your height, your vision, and your weight. The only thing on me that's changed so far is my weight, and I'm not telling you anything about that.

There has to be a streamlined way of doing this. Maternity uniforms are ill fitting, difficult and time-consuming to iron, expensive to dry-clean, and suited only to office work. We need alternatives. When you return to work, you haul out of the closet the same uniform you received when you were 19 years old, and you put it on. After your third child it doesn't fit in quite the same way, and it's not designed for a nursing mother coming back to work. We have nursing bras, nursing pads, and an expanded girth.

As a conclusion, this final posting has had a profound effect on the lives of my family and myself. We love the area but are unable to enjoy much of what it offers due to the cost. I pay more for a lower standard of home and for the daily needs of food, heat, and transportation. I can survive the housing situation, but I need a reasonable allowance to provide a life for my family, comparable to the standard available at previous bases.

My child's private schooling at previous bases is an impossible luxury here, as are dance, gymnastics or riding lessons. I must rely upon a provincial subsidy to afford special needs day care for my son. I worry more about separation from my children. I continue my commitment to my career in the military through working on a bachelor of arts in the military sciences offered through the Royal Military College and in volunteering for programs such as this.

One hundred percent of the women in the Canadian Forces serve the bulk of their careers during their child bearing years. Tomorrow's military must consider the family an essential part of a service person. I've tried to address a few of the inequities of the triple A, financial shortfalls of parental leave, and career implications for single parents concerning occupational focus of the military. I submit them to you in writing. I am ready to answer anything you have.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Are you allowed to receive EI benefits when you go on maternity leave?

• 1155

Cpl G.H. Berard: When we go on maternity leave we receive the 55% employment insurance benefit throughout the maternity and throughout the parental leave. During the maternity leave we receive a top-up of benefits to 93%. As of the first day of parental leave that top-up is cut off, as is the accommodation assistance allowance.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Lieutenant-Commander Jean Lavallée.

Lieutenant-Commander Jean Lavallée (Mayor, Work Point Community Council): It is with great pride that I welcome you all to Work Point community. As was pointed out, I am Lieutenant Commander Jean Lavalle, mayor of this community.

Today I will brief you on behalf of Belmont Park and Work Point community residents' concerns and different issues that we face.

Looking at the budgetary restraints that CFB Esquimalt has been under since 1995, these have had a direct impact on the quality of life of married quarters residents. We have seen an overall reduction in the maintenance level of our communal areas, such as playgrounds and the like. It is obvious that the limited budget that the formation commander is entrusted with very often has a direct impact on the different amenities that community councils have to work with.

On the other hand, if we look at any improvement that CFHA does to our residences, very often this will increase the value or the quality of our MQ, and in return the members end up paying for it because the rate of the MQ will increase.

As most of you probably know, there are levies in lieu of taxes to the different municipalities. But we in the MQ communities have not seen the same types of amenities as residents of Colwood or Esquimalt enjoy. Those amenities are things such as sidewalks, properly maintained and operated playgrounds, or communal facilities that residents can enjoy.

First and foremost in everyone's mind is the cost of housing, an MQ, on the local economy or the real estate market. We were going to be advised earlier this month, as was pointed out by previous individuals, that our triple A would be coming down in January 1998, at the same time as CFHA was going to announce an increase in MQ rates.

Just to give you a background, the MQ rates increase is predicated by the fact that it is based upon market value as analysed by CMHC and because Treasury Board has decreed that MQ rates will reach market value by the turn of the century. My question is, if we must pay market value for our housing, when is our remuneration going to equal market value?

As well, people living on the economy have a recourse if they want to challenge any rate increase in their housing, which is something that MQ residents do not have.

Last year, in an effort to develop a way ahead with MQ issues, the base looked at the possibility of consolidating all MQs into the one area. The plan was genuine, but it had two major drawbacks. First, the MQ rates would have increased quite substantially and, second, the standards to which the accommodation would have been built were based upon social service accommodation norms.

• 1200

As one can imagine, this project would have forced even more residents to seek social assistance in order to make ends meet. As well, because of the selection of accommodation standards, the project obviously did not bode too well for the self-pride of our members. In the end, this has left residents with the sense that very little can be done in the present rules we're bound by.

One might ask, what is the solution to all this? Is it regionalization of CF members' pay and allowances? Is it to provide CFHA with the flexibility to reach its full potential? Is it to allow base commanders the same latitude to manage land as they have with all the other resources they are entrusted with, or is it a matter of either commercializing or privatizing MQs altogether? No matter what the model is, the end result hopefully will be one which provides financial relief to MQ residents and all military residing in the Victoria area.

Mr. Chairman, the morale of our families is probably at the lowest level I have ever seen in my 14-year career. Over the last couple of years we have heard our leaders talk about numerous initiatives intended to redress this financial problem, none of which have delivered the kinds of effort and expectation they were seeking. Sir, your committee is seen as key in achieving what our dedicated and genuine leaders have failed to achieve. In honesty, you are perceived as possibly our last hope.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for your time and attention.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I believe Mr. Richardson has a question.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Lieutenant Commander, for giving us your perspectives in your role as the mayor of the area of Work Point.

You bring up a point here that is not worked out in my mind, and certainly not in the minds of the people who pay you. It's the point of market value. I think you mentioned you should be paid market value for your rent, but are you paid market value for services rendered, for time spent on duty, cumulatively, as compared with some similar civilian types of occupations? Those are the kinds of things that would really surprise a lot of people in Ottawa, when you think of our people spending maybe 200 days at sea, 24 hours a day, on service, with time spent away from families, as compared with other professional and semi-professional trades such as we have in the navy. I think we have to try our very best to evaluate that in terms of value, because it seems to me the bean-counters in Treasury Board and other places just gross things up and they don't really know how much time you people really spend on the job and in giving time to your public service, such as the mayor, as extra time. It's given voluntarily; I understand that.

Somehow we have to become very, very simple in that calculation. If anyone could do that and present it to us, it would help this committee with some credibility to help jack up real income. When you're charged what they think are real rents, they could put them into comparison: “well, give us the money in the pocket and we could pay rents comparable to the real income we get, but we're not getting the real income for time served”.

• 1205

That's all I have to say. We have to be able to come up with a more realistic equation to say we're being shortchanged here.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Captain Dave Wong, please.

Captain Dave Wong (Base Social Work Officer, Maritime Forces Pacific, Esquimalt): Good morning.

I've been asked to talk about the stresses being faced by our members and families. I've prepared a written brief and I'm just going to hit the highlights, trusting that you'll find time to read the other detail.

Stresses that we see, both in my office and in the offices of the other support services that exist in Esquimalt: tight personal financial resources; difficulties for spouses seeking employment; the cost of housing; a reduced sense of job security; constant adjustment demands due to continual reorganizations; changes and cuts to regulations and programs; reduced opportunities for career development and advancement; fewer people available to do the same amount or greater amounts of work, some of which is attributable to the changes themselves; fewer organizational supports for personal and family needs; lack of a clear sense of mission, purpose, and role; inadequate leadership; and the mixed message that the members' service is being valued by the government and the public, but not valuable enough to be given the people and the resources to fulfil the tasks, or the pay, benefits, and job security needed to provide for an adequate family life while they try to meet service demands.

The results we see: generalized fear and anxiety; generalized anger and frustration; psychosomatic illnesses; depression; incidents of self-harm and suicide; family violence; substance misuse; child abuse; child behaviour and school problems; financial distress; marital discord; a profound sense of helplessness and hopelessness; feelings of isolation from communities and extended family supports; and a diminished motivation and dedication to duty.

I want to talk a little bit about this last one. I think it's a reflection of the leadership we're getting from government. Some leaders are adopting a lifeboat ethic and a buck-up mentality. Subordinates are expected to take care of and solve their own problems. Those who cannot are met with denigrating verbal comments, given unreasonable ultimatums, threatened with or given recorded warnings, counselling, probation, or release. I think that's attributable to manpower resources being stretched so thin that units simply can't afford to lose someone to something like a compassionate posting or even devote the resources to resolve the problems.

You have to understand that the military has a can do attitude. We do what we can; we do what we're told, when we're told.

There's also a desire of some leaders for their departments to appear problem free so they're deemed competent managers running good departments. Too often a good department, a good member, is defined not in terms of the quality and quantity of work done but whether problems exist or not. Not all of our leaders harden like this. Some are simply faced with the overwhelming pressure of taskings and other duties that reduce their ability to make decisions about or advocate on behalf of their subordinates. So they pass divisional problems in the hopes that others can make the decisions or do the advocacy for them.

Some are hyper-vigilant to the potential that their decisions will be met with a negative outcry, or they simply fear not making the absolutely right decision. They fear this because the CF's culture has become one where too often attention is placed on management that is being done wrong and not often enough on leadership that is being done right, where negativity and fault-finding is in fact rewarded. These leaders avoid making a decision and they lapse into a passive ignorance until subordinates either leave the CF or become administrative burdens and have to be forced out. That's not to say that the divisional system is breaking down, because in the vast majority of cases the divisional system works with proficiency, adequacy, and compassion. Unfortunately, where it's not working is showing up with increased frequency, enough to detract from those other instances where it works.

• 1210

What do we need as a solution? At the organizational level we need from government, in specific concrete terms, what's expected of families and individual members. How many months are sailors expected to sail? Are members expected to expend their leave when it's convenient for the unit or end up losing it, rather than taking it when it means something to them, when it's more likely to have a rejuvenating effect? Are families expected to see the military members away more often and have fewer supports available to help them survive while their military members are away?

Members and families need to know what the limits of those expectations are, and they need to have an acknowledgement that these expectations exist. They need to know, in concrete terms, what a satisfactory quality of life is. Rather than our telling you what we think we need, we need you to tell us what you deem a satisfactory quality of life is, what this social contract entails in terms of our receiving it.

We need a method by which to measure where we are now in terms of the social contract and quality of life so we can see if we're making any progress towards the standards that you specify. This is important because organizational re-engineering research shows that without a method to measure and monitor these initiatives, 57% of them fail.

At the individual level we need to acknowledge that CF personnel and their families are suffering from depersonalization, organizationally imposed barriers to realizing personal accomplishments, and a lowered self-esteem as a result.

Most importantly, we have to see that the government has listened to the input that the rank and file give, by acting quickly upon it. Too often the rank and file are surveyed for their input and the questions are studied for a long time afterwards, only for the members to see their input ignored and leaders in government doing what they wanted to do in the first place.

Some remedies members and families have passed to me and my colleagues:

Certainly there's an increase in pay and allowances, but you have to know that the last round of pay increases were small and actually had the effect of simply pissing people off. We need a restructuring of NCM pay scales to include more incentive levels, to compensate for the reduced opportunity for career development.

We need to give individuals responsibility for budgetary restraint and organizational restructuring by giving them the latitude to invent and implement cost-saving measures.

We actually tried this with base supply here in Esquimalt. Managers and workers worked cooperatively to achieve the goals of cost savings and efficiency. Base supply became the most efficient supply organization not simply within the CF but also within government. However, after they enjoyed the improved sense of morale, accomplishment and self-esteem, ASD was brought in from above and their gains were lost.

We need greater recognition for good work and achievement of standards. Certainly medals and commendation pins are worn proudly and visibly as markers of personal accomplishment. Other programs, like deserving service member flights, are great. They're simply too few to be a tangible motivator.

We need a reduction of the use of consultants from outside the CF. Every time we bring somebody in, we tell members who have qualifications that their qualifications aren't acknowledged, aren't recognized, or that the leadership lacks confidence in their abilities.

I have an example of this, again going back to the base supply example. My colleague worked up a program, brought it in and made some excellent gains. NDHQ thought it was great, adopted it, and now it's in the hands of a consultant at 12 times the cost it would be to second him to NDHQ to do the program and hire somebody to backfill while he's gone.

You've heard about the need for more available housing. We also have to revamp PMQ areas into housing cooperatives. Residents tend to know what's best for their communities, from the types and quality of repair and maintenance services needed to amenities and improvements that make life comfortable.

• 1215

Too often residents' input is ignored. This happened in Aldergrove, where residents advised CFHA to put, at a minimum, heat lamps inside three vacant PMQs. It was ignored, and now $40,000 per unit is required for repairs to make them habitable again; and that's not going to happen.

We need a travel program for families to maintain contact with extended family and for members to maintain relationships with non-custodial children. I came across a program a few years ago where U.S. military members and families posted to Europe could fly anywhere in the States for $99. Canadian Forces members took advantage of that too. If we had a similar program in Canada where we could fly anywhere in Canada, or even travel by bus or train, that would be an opportunity for civilian transportation companies to show they appreciate the contribution CF members make.

In the same vein, an expansion of the military discount program and the inclusion of CANEX.... Our own Canadian Forces exchange system doesn't participate in the program the Victoria Chamber of Commerce has for us to give us discounts. The Victoria Chamber of Commerce—those members who participate—tell us they appreciate the services we provide to the community.

Revamping the second career assistance network retraining funds as a transition benefit so we can use it for a little longer than a year after our release.

Easing of the CF policy to allow members who just don't want to stay here any more to get out.

An employee assistance program for spouses.

Perhaps opening up those retraining programs that are limited to those who are on EI benefits.

An employment protection program for reservists, so reservists can come in, train with us, and be available, so when commanders need positions filled so they can let people go on leave the reservists are there and they can come up and take our place, at least for a temporary period.

In closing, I think we need to recognize we are a highly stressed force right now and we need to be stabilized. We need to be stabilized in the long term with leadership. We need to be stabilized in the immediate sense with some programs to help us survive the stresses we're facing right now.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Captain, would it be possible for the committee to have a copy of your notes?

Capt Dave Wong: Of course.

The Chairman: Are there any questions from the committee? Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Are you of the opinion that in the armed forces, the problems that accompany financial problems, such as family violence, alcoholism and other substance addictions are comparable to those that occur in civil society in general?

[English]

Capt Dave Wong: The rub, madam, is that all I can give you is anecdotes. While the instrumentation exists actually to measure it and compare it with the civilian population, I simply don't have the resources, nor do any of my colleagues, to gather those data so we can say it is any higher or lower in occurrence or intensity than in the civilian population.

I don't believe it is any higher. Perhaps that's my own bias. It's the opinion of my colleagues too that it's no higher. Some people even believe it's a little lower, because we're a little more protected. But I can't give you any numbers.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Captain, I appreciate your long list. I think you've really hit on a lot of areas that haven't been presented thus far.

I was curious about one thing you mentioned, the reference to leave. You were saying that if leave was not accepted at a certain point, it would be cancelled.

• 1220

Capt Dave Wong: Yes, sir. Leave policy changed. Previously we could accumulate leave if we didn't take it. Now we are restricted to accumulating, over our career, 25 days, at 5 days per year, with the approval of higher authority, and only in cases where we could not take leave because of operational requirements saying we could not take leave in the periods that were specified.

Mr. Art Hanger: So it's more on the cumulative side that you're speaking?

Capt Dave Wong: The bottom line, sir, is that if we don't take it we lose it, unless we can show to our commanding officers there was an operational requirement that said we could not take leave.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, okay. Thank you.

I have another point, on alternative services delivery. You cited one example of base supply and how you went about becoming more efficient with the service, and then alternative delivery came in.

Capt Dave Wong: Alternative service delivery is coming in. I don't know the details of that. My colleague and office partner Phil Katie was working with base supply on that. In my understanding, a lot of the stuff they were doing is being contracted out now.

Mr. Art Hanger: I understand contracting out has increased capacity throughout the military. How does one gauge efficiency in an area, even in base supply, for instance? What can you compare it to?

Capt Dave Wong: Sir, you would have to ask the people who actually gave that designation, that they were the most efficient in government. This was an external team that came in and evaluated them. I don't know what criteria they used.

Mr. Art Hanger: Fine. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Captain Wong, for what I thought was a very comprehensive and well thought out presentation.

In summarizing your feelings, and from an organizational standpoint, I don't want to put words into your mouth, but would you say the Canadian Forces at this point in their history are an organization with serious problems, or are they an organization in crisis?

Capt Dave Wong: I would say it's an organization that's in crisis rather than one with serious problems. I say that because, in part, many of the military members.... You have to understand that I see a lot of pathology. Probably about 65% of my time is spent dealing with pathology. But I do see other members when I do workshops and presentations, and the sense I get from them is that yes, it's serious, but it can be fixed. They want it to be fixed, and they are willing to do whatever it takes to get fixed. Certainly the energy and the willingness to make it work and to reduce the problems are here at our end.

The Chairman: Bob.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): It was interesting, Captain, that you asked us to define quality of life. I think you did an excellent job yourself right after that, when you said you were looking for us to give you the answers. I think you just gave us the answers.

I wanted to elaborate on a couple of things. I wrote a couple of things down here. You mentioned more incentive levels. Can you elaborate on that a little? Have you given that any thought?

Capt Dave Wong: Sir, there have been a number of different discussions about incentive levels for NCMs. We had a task a little while ago in which that was considered and rejected, simply because it was too costly.

What we're facing now is that NCMs have at maximum, I think, four incentive levels. Their incentive levels, between one and another, are about $25 a month. For some members that wasn't a real problem, because they looked at promotion as a method of increasing their pay. But more and more they are saying promotion isn't there any more. It's more stuck at the top. There are fewer opportunities. So there are fewer opportunities to increase their monthly remuneration.

By increasing the incentive levels, certainly...and they look jealously at captains, who have ten incentive levels, each of which averages about $100 a month.

• 1225

Mr. Bob Wood: How many incentive levels are there for the enlisted people?

Capt Dave Wong: I think at maximum it's five basic, and then four for corporals. I think they're the most.

Is it four? It's four. Sorry. It's been a while since I was in the rank.

There are four incentive levels and they're actually about $25 a month apart, which—

Mr. Bob Wood: And the ones for the captains are $100?

Capt Dave Wong: Captains average about $100 and there are ten of them.

Mr. Bob Wood: In answering my question, you said there was TASK and it was too costly.

Capt Dave Wong: TASK, trade advancements for skill and knowledge.

Mr. Bob Wood: Is that report out? Would it be possible to get that?

Capt Dave Wong: There are lots of reports on it, and I'm sure they can be dug up. I'm not sure where it sits right now, who has that paperwork, but it was there and it was studied extensively.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are the people who said it was too costly base people, or is it the Maritime Command, or what?

Capt Dave Wong: As I understand it, it's an NDHQ problem. It was first looked at particularly for the air force trades.

Mr. Bob Wood: The more incentive levels you mentioned in recognition of good work.... In your mind does that all go together, or is it separate?

Capt Dave Wong: I think it does. Certainly the incentive levels keep people going and give them hope. It gives them something to look forward to, that, hey, maybe it's only $25 but next year I'm going to get $25 a month more. It may seem trivial—and I'm sure a lot of people sitting behind me are just wagging their heads and saying, so what?—but it does have that effect for some.

Certainly the recognition.... Too often we walk around here worried that we're going to get slapped on the back of the head for doing something wrong, rather than walking through the gates being acknowledged that, hey, look, my boots are shone, my pants are pressed, I'm a good-looking soldier and people recognize me for that. I think that needs to come down right from the top. We're too often criticized and not enough praised for what we do.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, I agree with that.

The Chairman: Just a quick few questions on the incentive levels. You said that for captains there are roughly ten?

Capt Dave Wong: Yes, sir.

The Chairman: You said they're worth about $100?

Capt Dave Wong: On average. In the middle of the incentive range for captains, the incentives are actually about $125 a month. At either end, on the shoulders, they're worth a little bit less, somewhere around $90. They average about $100 a month.

The Chairman: That's not each?

Capt Dave Wong: Each year.

The Chairman: It's $100 for the ten incentives if the person qualifies for them? Do I understand it right?

Capt Dave Wong: Each one. It goes up by about $100 a month.

The Chairman: Each one?

Capt Dave Wong: Each one. Last year I made $100 less a month than I do this year.

The Chairman: Do the numbers of incentives increase as you go up the chain of command?

Capt Dave Wong: Certainly for the officers the rank levels have different numbers of incentives. Captain is by far the largest one. For majors and lieutenant commanders I believe there are five. For lieutenants, sub-lieutenants and acting sub-lieutenants there are two, three and four, depending on the various entry plans.

Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I hear what you're saying about incentives, and that's certainly an area that I'd like to investigate more. But there's also opportunity for advancement. Again, we've heard that it used to be that you could look forward to promotions on a fairly regular basis. Is the greatest barrier to advancement as a result of downsizing, or is it as a result of perhaps our senior personnel staying longer than they might have in the past?

• 1230

Capt Dave Wong: It's a result of downsizing. There are fewer positions. A lot of positions have been cut. Some of the older people....

For example, in my occupation we're still not actually sure and we haven't been given written advisement that we're actually staying in the forces, at least in uniform. We've gone down to three.... We've lost our lieutenant-colonel position and three major positions. The rest are captains or lieutenants. We currently have eight majors and a lieutenant-colonel. When he goes, his position disappears. Of those other eight majors, two are taking retirement in the next couple of years, but we're going to have to wait until they pass on before we can see any hope of promotion.

I think that's indicative of a lot of the other trades, certainly for the non-commissioned trades. They have seen a downsizing, a shrinking of the opportunities at the top, to move up to chief petty officers, and they've seen an amalgamation of trades, which further restricts their opportunity for promotion. The base has expanded, in other words.

Ms. Judi Longfield: What is the apprehension level of most people getting ready for retirement from the armed forces?

Capt Dave Wong: Most people don't even want to think about it. They are not keen on the economy. They are doing something they really enjoy. They have been doing something they have been doing for a long time. It's in their blood. Most people don't want to think about it until it's actually upon them.

Ms. Judi Longfield: In your experience, of those who have retired from this area, how many have remained in this area and how many, just in ballpark figures, have moved east of the Rockies?

Capt Dave Wong: How many have moved east of the Rockies after retirement? That I couldn't begin to tell you.

Ms. Judi Longfield: I'm just wondering about the cost of living and all that. If they have the opportunity to get out, are they going?

Capt Dave Wong: There are an awful lot of retired people up on the north part of the island, above the Malahat, where the cost of housing is cheaper. A lot of them have moved to the interior. They like B.C., but they move to wherever they are going to move to. I simply don't know how many move as a result of the cost of living.

I did have a statistic once. The base commander in North Bay told me that as far as he knew, within six months about a third of people who retired at 55 were dead from heart attacks.

The Chairman: Bob, you had a follow-up?

Mr. Bob Wood: Coming from North Bay, I want to know who told him that.

I wrote down a lot of little notes here and I just want to ask you another one. You mentioned retraining funds. Obviously this was for people who are looking for second incomes—

Capt Dave Wong: It's called the second career assistance network.

What the people are entitled to is $2,500, at maximum, which pays out 50% of the costs of tuition of a retraining program. The definition of a retraining program is pretty much skills based. You certainly can't use it for academic upgrading; there's another program for that. All training has to be completed within a year of retirement. Otherwise you get zip.

The difficulty with that is that $2,500 is not a whole lot of money, but if you can't afford to pay your tuition up front, let alone get the 50% back once you've completed a year later, it's not much good to you.

Mr. Bob Wood: David, do you think...Captain—

Capt Dave Wong: I do remember you, sir.

Mr. Bob Wood: I know you do.

I just remembered something we tried to do when we asked about this in the committee in Ottawa. I would like to have your input into it, if it's possible. Do you think it would be possible to set up a program of job matching within the local business community where the spouse is being transferred so they could continue their career? Is it possible to do that, and is it being done anywhere else? I don't know if it's being done. I just think it's something we or the community could look at. Is it being done anywhere, to your knowledge?

Capt Dave Wong: I don't know anywhere where it is being done, systematically anyway. Certainly it happens within some corporations that a spouse can move and transfer. That's about as close as we get.

We've talked about it, certainly within my branch and among other people in the support services, as something that is fathomable. It's within our imagination and it could happen.

To have that happen, we would certainly have to have the corporate sector on line too, to go along with that program and say, yes, we'll take somebody who is coming in from Halifax to Esquimalt and look at them in terms of the skills they have and how they can help us while they're here, instead of in terms of, well, they're a military family and they're going to be moving in a couple of years and I'm going to have to go through this hiring and retraining process again, so I'm not even going to consider them for employment.

• 1235

Mr. Bob Wood: Speaking from experience, I know the chamber of commerce in North Bay has been trying to do that with military families coming in and out of town. I just wondered if it was done here or maybe the chamber might look at it.

Capt Dave Wong: In isolation, certainly. I'm familiar with the North Bay Chamber of Commerce. We talked about that when I was there a few years ago, and I'm glad to hear they're moving forward with that. Some other communities are trying it helter-skelter, but it's a patchwork. But we could move it onto a larger scale.

Mr. Bob Wood: Right. Thanks a lot.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would simply like a clarification: is it possible to receive several incentive premiums at once, so that a person might receive 200 to $300 more on a monthly basis? Is that possible or can you obtain only one incentive at a time?

[English]

Capt Dave Wong: It's one incentive at a time. We start at a basic pay level and then the next year we go to incentive one and the following year to incentive two, until we're at the end of our incentives.

The Chairman: Colonel Little, please.

LCol Chris Little (Commanding Officer, 443 Squadron, CFB Esquimalt): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'm the commanding officer of 443 Squadron. By introduction, we consist of approximately 200 people. We work at Patricia Bay at the airport, about 30 kilometres north of here, and we operate the Sea King helicopters that fly off the ships of the fleet here. For the record, we are the best unit in the air force.

Later today we'll hear some of the personal concerns of my members as you visit us for a brief time before your departure, but I'm going to put one issue in front of you here right now, which is the overriding concern for every member when they're posted to Esquimalt; that is, the cost of living and specifically the cost of housing in the Victoria area.

My family's personal experience was to move here in 1996 from Winnipeg. On moving, for twice the amount that we paid for our house in Winnipeg we have a house that's much smaller, no garage, no basement, a lot that's only half the size, and essentially we're broke trying to pay for that house. Looking after just the costs of the mortgage, heat, lights, and insurance takes well over half of my pay.

Knowing how hard it is for my family, one of my first concerns on taking command of the squadron was how the people in the squadron get by. There are a number of junior lieutenants, a number of junior NCMs. So I started asking around.

Some of them live in married quarters. That means they have an 80-kilometre round trip to work every day, and there's no assistance for that. Some of them are sharing houses. Some of them are in dumps. Some of them actually got to rent, but normally when you rent a house here you get half the house; you get the upstairs or the downstairs. To try to find a whole house means you're paying more than a mortgage payment.

Some of them, in fact quite a few of them, are carrying part-time jobs on weekends, evenings, if they can find an employer that's flexible and they can get the flexible hours. So when I'm not calling them into work on weekends, which happens frequently, they can go in and out and deliver pizzas or work in hardware stores.

A few that are determined to buy a house they can afford live 100 kilometres away and drive in every day. But it means they have a chance of buying a house.

There are a few, like me, that just put everything on the line, cancel any subscription to a magazine, don't buy RRSPs, and give up every chance of a vacation. They end with scratching and buying a house.

• 1240

No matter who I talk to in the squadron, the discussions always come around to, “How are we going to get by this month?” Everybody is concerned about what they're paying out and what they're getting in. I haven't done a detailed analysis of what the pay adjustments have done to my pay, but my January take-home pay is $50 less than my September one.

We have a little different situation here for the air force than we do for the navy in general. Through the home-port division system a sailor can expect to come here and stay for 20 years. For those who are smart enough at the beginning to figure out that this gives them a chance to take time to look for a house, they can get something...maybe one of those fixer-uppers, maybe not in great condition, but over 20 years they may get it to a position where it's reasonable.

For the air force, you come here and you get your four years—and that means anywhere from two to five, really—and then you're gone. So you show up, you have five days to find a place to live, and you go into shock over the cost for the first two days, with no idea if this is a reasonable cost or not. My real estate agent said, “Well, it's always between you and the vendor; there's no way to tell you if this is good or bad”. When we leave we have a chance of losing $20,000 here, with no help. “Sorry, that's not within 10%”.

When you come here for only a little time—and I've lived in five different provinces and two different countries in my career—you come dragging things like snow tires, snow shovels. I'm the only one on my block who had one last year when it snowed at Christmas. My car is 12 years old. It's falling apart and it's a bit of a junker. If I had lived here for 20 years it would still be going great.

The impact goes beyond just personal hardship. People who work on Sea Kings go through a long training program before they can actually operate or fix the aircraft. I have 110 technicians on my squadron. Because of the high cost here, people who are trained and ready to come here are choosing release rather than accept a posting to Victoria. I have 40 technicians who arrived here not trained for employment on Sea King aircraft. The heavy training burden it imposes on me, where 30% of my people are not trained and ready to go to sea when they arrive...I can't meet the operational commitment that is expected of me to support the fleet here. It's pretty hard for me to say, “Sorry, boss, I can't do it”, when everybody is so dedicated. I just had one pilot grounded who can't make the next deployment on the Ottawa, which will be six months away, and I had three volunteers within two hours to take his place.

There's a solution for this. We've always had a foreign service allowance for people who are out of the country, because we assume they're in a really high-cost area; they can't afford it, so here's the money. That brings them up to the standard we expect in Canada. It doesn't apply here. Those who get an accommodation allowance, yes, their target is very small and narrow. They give up trying to own a house and say they're going to rent, but even that's not very much.

If you combine the two programs and say triple A is used across the country and we have a way to judge it, where it's really expensive here, as in Toronto, and maybe not so high but still more than above the average in Ottawa.... You combine that with a foreign service allowance that applies to everybody who goes to that area. Now you're providing some relief to people and they can get by.

You'll hear everything else from my squadron this afternoon, so I'll close now. Any questions?

The Chairman: We thank you very much for your presentation.

LCol Chris Little: Thank you.

The Chairman: We will now break for 15 or 20 minutes.

• 1244

• 1314

The Chairman: I would now ask if anyone from the floor would like to make a presentation or offer a comment. Please identify yourself for the record.

Chief Petty Officer Humphrey (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, good morning. I am Chief Petty Officer Humphrey. I am the west coast maritime occupation adviser for marine engineers. I am also bringing forward views from the two other marine systems engineering occupations, the hull technicians and the naval electricians.

It is safe to say that for an MOC adviser it has been a very busy and challenging past few years. For those of you who are unfamiliar with why the advisory system is in place, may I add that it was established to enable personnel in related occupations to identify with each other in cohesive professional groups and thereby foster closer bonds.

• 1315

Our main role has been to act as a focal point within Maritime Command, which is my job within MARPAC in the formation, and on MOC-related issues to advise the formation commander, through our branch advisers, on issues relating to morale, training and structure.

Today I wish to touch on some of the concerns that collectively the marine systems engineering MOC advisers are dealing with or have had brought to our attention. It is our intention to enlighten those of you that may not be fully familiar with the issues we are facing today in our respective trades. The issues are in no particular order, and singularly they may seem simple to deal with. But when trade members are dealing collectively with these issues, to many of our trade members they seem insurmountable.

Extensive sea time of marine electricians and marine engineers: Many of our sailors have been at sea for nine or more straight years. This in many instances is almost twice as long as some of their counterparts.

Lack of and/or minimal pay raises: Some of our junior members have had to seek out social assistance to feed and clothe their families. The cost of living and working in the greater Victoria area is too much for many to overcome.

It is said by many that the sailors are the ones who makes the sacrifice in keeping the ships at sea. Their families should not be required to make these same sacrifices.

There is a definite lack of shore positions for marine engineering mechanics. These are our most junior trades personnel. At the present time I am not aware of a single shore billet in the Canadian navy. Many of these sailors are seeking their release because they cannot get loaded on a 20-month QL5 trade course or a posting ashore and must remain at sea. Almost all of these personnel have been at sea for seven years or more.

Manning shortages: Ships today seem to continually be going to sea undermanned in certain critical positions. Very seldom do we see today the five engineering officers of the watch on board ship when the ship leaves Esquimalt harbour. When ships go to sea undermanned, the few that are there must take up the slack for those that are not. This means more duty watches and longer working hours.

We wanted to touch on the term “quality of life”. It is disappointing to say this, but many of our trade members feel the senior officers and the government are hiding behind some of these words and using them as a shield. Very many sailors in the fleet and ashore feel that quality of life has been degraded with implementation of some of the new policies.

Morale: It seems it's at an all-time low. I believe it's fair to say this of the morale for both the officer and the non-commissioned member. We are seeing too many of our shipmates seeking their release because they have grown weary of waiting for better days.

The term “more with less” still exists. Our brand-new Canadian patrol frigates were for the most part supposed to be repair by replacement and maintenance by exchange. Because of the cost, this idea was very soon put by the wayside. With the constant drain on the maintenance budget, our sailors are having to work longer and harder in keeping the ships at sea.

It's most likely due to morale that many of our sailors have chosen to slow down and not progress with their training. When one speaks to these young sailors, many of them see no advantage to progressing to the next level in the Canadian navy.

Trust: This is perhaps one of the most disheartening areas that as MOC advisers we are attempting to deal with. It seems that many do not trust their superiors or their government to follow through with what they say or to keep private what they are told in confidence.

The marine systems engineering division, as well as other trades, have many concerns, and most of them cannot be easily dealt with. These concerns greatly affect the state of the trade today and have the potential to significantly affect the fleet in the future.

• 1320

A few months back, when he was talking about the problems and the concerns that he seemed to be portraying, one of my counterparts was asked by a senior officer, “If you don't like the navy why don't you get out?” To that, my counterpart replied, “I love the navy”. I speak because I love the navy and I bring forward these concerns in the hope that the navy will be a better place to be.

We cannot stand by and hope the problems will just go away. It is the responsibility of all of us to bring to our superiors the concerns that our trade members and sailors have. It is also the responsibility of our superiors to deal with the concerns fairly, honestly and diligently. We must have the courage to deal with these issues, and in doing so we will restore the trust and loyalty that seem to be missing from today's navy.

We have witnessed in the past some of our most senior officers speaking out against what they have perceived as shortcomings within the military. We have also seen them removed from their posts. To name but a few, we speak of Vice-Admiral Murray, Admiral Anderson and Vice-Admiral Thomas.

The voices of the men and women who serve and protect our country and are prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice must be heard and actions need to be taken.

On behalf of my fellow MOC advisers and our respective trade members, I wish to thank you for hearing us today. We look forward to better days ahead.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions from the panel? No? Thank you.

Chief Petty Officer Robert Sankpiel (Individual Presentation): I'm Chief Petty Officer Sankpiel, and I see the stokers are going to have at you first here, as is only right.

I fully agree with the issues that have already been brought up. What I'm going to hit on are what I consider to be systemic issues.

I don't excuse my cynicism. I've learned it and I've earned it in the navy.

Not too long ago we had a Phillips study look at several issues in the military. I agree with the recommendations of the Phillips study and I support their findings. What we have happening here is a massive breakdown in the military organization.

When I have a leader at the naval captain rank explain to me that his decisions are made on the “Globe and Mail test”, something is wrong. If it doesn't look good in the Globe and Mail, he's not going to do it. Our leaders have become politicians and they have become managers.

I am not a manager; I am a chief petty officer. I don't have a job; I'm in the navy. I am not interested in the business end. My job is to keep the grey things going as instructed by the government of this country.

I recently had a senior officer explain to me on a flight that I had to accept the fact that bad morale in a downsizing military is not a bad thing, and that this perception seems to persist in Ottawa.

One of the statements that I'd like to make to you is based on Robertson Davies, who's tried to identify Canadian myth versus Canadian reality.

• 1325

The Canadian myth is that we have a well-trained, professional force that is adequately supported to do the job the Government of Canada gives us. The reality is what you've been hearing today. The reality is that if I do the same job on civvy street, or any one of the aspects of my job on civvy street, I'm going to get paid a lot more than I am here. The reality is that if I go to civvy street, my training is going to be actually suited for the job at hand. I can go to a civilian college. I can get a course that's recognized and I can do my job effectively, given the resources to do it, because it's recognized that if you want to implement a policy or any kind of a structure in today's society, you must fund it.

People want a military, but we're not prepared to pay for it. I view the military much like the fire department: nobody wants to pay for it until they need it.

One of the problems we're facing in the military today, and this goes back to my statement that our leaders are politicians rather than leaders.... I am a serving member of the Canadian Forces. I don't care about your policies as the Government of Canada. Implementing those policies is not my job. Nobody has ever managed to explain to me what legal weight a policy statement has to the Canadian Forces. I know what my regulations and orders are. Where do the policy statements that continually filter down from on high fit into that structure? If you're going to make policy statements, back them up with regulations. That's how we operate.

You heard somebody earlier today speak about operational requirements. Our leaders use operational requirements as an excuse to retain members when release would normally be given. They use the term “operational requirements” to justify differences in pay and benefits between us and other members of the government service. Try to find a definition of operational requirement. If somebody can show me one, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, it's kind of a convenient excuse.

The recommendation I would make to you, if you have the opportunity to have any input into government matters, and I hope you do, is to separate the military from the civilian structure in NDHQ. Our uniformed personnel are military members and leaders. They should not be managers, politicians, and bureaucrats. When I look at an admiral, I want to see a leader of a fleet. I don't want to see a bean-counter.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Petty Officer Andrew P. Scott (Individual Presentation): Good morning. I am from HMCS Winnipeg. I too am a marine engineer. As you said, you're going to get it from all fronts here.

I'm not as good a public speaker as Chief Sankpiel or Chief Humphrey. I certainly don't want to even compare some of the things that are going on in my specific branch with the abject misery that some people are under in CFB Esquimalt.

I'm tired. I'm tired, after 15 years of service, of not being able to get ahead. As Chief Humphrey's esteemed colleague suggested, if you don't like it, get out. Well, what happens to someone when they want to get out? They put an application in for release. In accordance with Canadian Forces policy, they're entitled to be released within 30 days administratively, within service requirements, which is a pretty vague area, as Chief Sankpiel brought out.

• 1330

If someone isn't happy, they're not content with their job, they've found alternate employment, just let them go. At the very least, within service requirements, review the application instead of just saying you're a Cert 3, you have to go to sea.

Every one of these policies has to be looked at. All applications should be reviewed on their own merit, and not by the letter of the order, but by using a little bit of common sense, by using a little bit of humanity and having some genuine concern for the individual who's making the application in the first place.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hanger, you have a question.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm kind of curious, Petty Officer Scott. I know the comment was made by a few others, but when a complaint about conditions is aired, superior officers tell you if you don't like it get out, or have given others such a statement.

Petty Officer Andrew Scott: That has been the general attitude that has been put forward by many people during my career, yes. I will say that my superiors on HMCS Winnipeg have been nothing but supportive in my efforts to obtain a release. It's higher than that.

If you don't like it and you want to get out, why do we have draconian policies in a time of cutbacks that are going to keep people in? Why are you restricting people from taking charge of their own lives? Or is it preferable that someone stays in Esquimalt, loses a job, and goes on welfare? Because once that release is in there's another order out there. It doesn't come back out—service requirements.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Sergeant Danielle Goulet (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentleman, members of SCONDVA, my name is Danielle Goulet and I am a sergeant by rank in the air force. At the risk of getting any bad comments here, I wear the right collar.

I would like to thank the committee for this wonderful and extremely appreciated opportunity. As a military member, I am obligated to go through the chain of command for any and all matters. The process is often long and frustrating. I am convinced that the Canadian Armed Forces must change its views and attitudes toward the importance of family. I consider this committee to be a direct route to that necessary change. Therefore I welcome this opportunity with great hope.

The following information was obtained through a focus group intended for parents in uniform, more specifically, military members who are either single parents or whose significant other was also in uniform. The overall feeling of the discussion was that the CF was not moving along with the rest of society. Family matters are now recognized as a crucial factor in a company's success. Comparatively, the general opinion in the CF is still summarized with the common phrase, “If we wanted you to have a family, we would have issued one to you”.

• 1335

This comment is then usually followed by the now infamous “not deployable, not employable”. If this latter motto is going to be the primary guideline for the next decade, then the government must recognize the unique working conditions and demands that military members face. Consequently, the government must provide unique forms of support to the members of the CF and their families.

Here is a detailed list of what was mentioned, although not complete, during the focus group.

Breast feeding—brace yourself, we're going to talk boobs here. Breast feeding is highly recommended and supported by our medical society. The Canadian people have in fact drastically changed opinion on breast feeding and now recognize breast feeding as the healthiest way of feeding an infant. The Canadian Forces, however, are once again trailing behind in this change. There is little support, if at all, among our supervisors. We recognize there are situations where the needs of the CF must come first. In most instances, however, there is plenty of room for consideration, flexibility, postponement, and common sense.

Here are some examples. Base duties: although base duties vary in length and frequency from base to base and according to rank, I will use the rule found in Esquimalt to explain this point of view. When a member requests to be temporarily removed from the base duty list because she is breast feeding her child, her request is turned down flat. It is felt that the member could extract milk before duty to satisfy the child's need.

This first argument is easily countered with the simple fact that not all women can extract. It also can take days, sometimes weeks, to successfully train the breast-fed child to drink out of a bottle and go back to the breast. Without going into a lengthy explanation on the mechanics of breast feeding, suffice it to say that attempting to extract to satisfy a duty of but a few hours—sometimes up to 24, I have to admit—can be very painful for the mother and extremely disruptive for the infant.

The second argument I often hear is that removing a member from the duty list causes an increased quantity of duties for other members. Well, if the base is not willing to temporarily exempt a member because she's nursing, is it so difficult to just postpone the duties? She can do those duties after she's done her breast-feeding period.

Through my career I have seen the CF support sports and leisure activities that cost an enormous amount of time and money—and that's fine. This support is needed for the welfare and good morale of the troops. Yet a nursing mother cannot extend her lunch hour to feed her infant. I have seen drunk members hurt themselves to the point where days, weeks, sometimes months of sick leave were required before they were considered fully productive workers. And this was well accepted, for it was generally seen as a humorous affair. Yet the idea of exempting a nursing member of her trimester's duty is perceived as outrageously unfair.

It is crucial that the CF come out of its dark ages and become more supportive of its nursing members. Flexibility and common sense from our employer are of the essence, as the members should be able to nurse their children for as long as they wish and without fear of reprisal or negative consequences to their career.

We also talked of women's uniforms. Tremendous physical changes take place during pregnancy and after birth. The average woman takes anywhere from six to 24 months to fully recover. Some never do. In most cases, because even our bone structure changes, women almost never go back to their pre-pregnancy size of clothing. Clothing allowances do not cover the expense of new uniforms.

Moreover, the rules and regulations on the wearing of the uniform exclude any consideration of these changes. Our peekaboo shirts make nursing pads an obvious statement of motherhood, and the situation quickly becomes most embarrassing when wetness from milk letdown occurs. For these reasons, most women choose to wear their sweater or jacket on a permanent basis, but on hot summer days this can be very uncomfortable.

• 1340

There are also situations in the service where wearing the sweater or the jacket is prohibited. I myself walked out of two of these situations at the risk of being charged. I could not bear the idea of walking around with two wet circles on my shirt in front of insensitive people who felt rules and regulations prevail over common sense and consideration.

We are required to return the maternity uniforms at the end of our maternity leave, and therefore we are to wear our normal blouse. Again, this blouse does not forgive the changes a nursing mother goes through during the day. Most of us end up wearing a shirt that is too small or too large.

The rules and regulations must be changed. A woman should have the choice to wear the maternity shirt or uniform or civilian attire even after giving birth and for as long as she wishes to breast feed.

The shirts should be redesigned with a less conspicuous fabric, and exchange of uniforms should be permissible for members coming back on strength after maternity leave.

Okay, we're done with boobs now.

Temporary duties: There isn't a single day I do not thank God for having been transferred to a job that requires that I attend courses in the United States versus Canada.

I'm a single parent. I showed up for my first course with my one-year-old child. Upon arriving at the American base, I was provided with family quarters, for which I paid the extra fees. I was given a loan card onto which I could sign out any and all baby equipment I needed: crib, high chair, stroller, everything. I was provided with a list of recommended caregivers available on base and constantly reminded of their support should I need anything else.

The second course I attended was in a different state. I showed up six months pregnant and with my then two-and-a-half-year-old. Again we were provided with family quarters, day care facilities and even medical care.

Now here's the Canadian version of a similar scenario. Approximately two years ago I applied and was selected to attend a three-month course in Saint-Jean, Quebec. I found on my own, at my own expense, a lady who provided room-and-board services and was located within walking distance of the structure. She was also available to care for my children. Boy, things were really looking good.

I then tried to buy a seat on the same flight I was booked on, and this is where I ran into difficulties. They would not let me pay for the seat. They would not book my priority two seat for my child. Their best recommendation was, book your child on priority five and if that doesn't work put him on standby. I pointed out that my child is but three years old and I can't leave him behind at the airport should he not make it to the list. The answer I got was, too bad, you're a member, you're on duty, you're going, the child stays behind. I had to refuse the course eventually, because I was not prepared to go away for a three-month period, which is a long time, and leave behind my children, who were of such tender ages at that time.

Everyone involved in this situation would have gained from letting me attend the course while bringing my children. The CF would have gained a more knowledgeable worker while saving money. I was paying for my own rations and quarters, which they would have had to pay otherwise. I would have increased my academic qualifications while having the daily reassurance of my children's welfare. The children would not have had to go through the emotional upheaval associated with the long absence of a parent. There was no loser in there; there were only people to gain.

The CF should support a member wishing to bring his or her family on TD wherever possible. Temporary family quarters, where available, should be accessible, and seats on flights should also be accessible, because families do count.

• 1345

Another item we touched was day care. We are asked to be available at any time. We work unusual shifts. We often must give extra long hours for which we are not compensated financially. Therefore we need on-base day care facilities open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We do not have all the answers on how to achieve this ideal goal. We recognize the financial difficulties, the provincial limitations, and other concerns. However, where there's a will there's a way, and the CF should seriously study the different options available to provide reliable on-base day care.

We highly recommend that the CF take the whole maternity subject and treat it as an item on its own. As it is now, the CF introduced maternity rights and privileges by blending them with the existing rules and regulations, which fail to recognize the actual needs of the members. We recommend that the CF be more lenient on its “not deployable, not employable” motto.

According to the last statistics heard on the news, more than 49% of parents are single. Most families in our society are two-income families. If the CF is to literally hire only those who are truly deployable, its forces would almost be exclusively made up of single males with no kids. Let's keep ourselves deployable by providing the necessary support. It's the only way to enter the next decade while maintaining efficiency in our operations and respect for ourselves.

I have not approached the financial aspects that should also be included in this report on the quality of life, such things like day care subsidies, LTA for single parents, special consideration for parents with special needs children or parents of triplets. It will, I suspect, show up many times during your tour. Also, I do not pretend to have all the solutions, but we're hoping that SCONDVA will use their resources and power to rectify some of the problems.

On behalf of the members who have attended the focus group for parents in uniform, again I would like to express our appreciation for this opportunity. We are happy that someone is willing to hear from the little people. There is so much more to discuss and work on, but everybody is going to fall asleep, so thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Madam.

[English]

Are there any questions?

[Translation]

Thank you. That was very interesting.

[English]

Mr. Lorne Jones (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentlemen, I'm a retired serviceman.

There's something wrong with the system when they can't afford to get into sports in Victoria. It's because of the wages of the servicemen. You have to look at giving them more money somehow.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Debbie McPhail (Individual Presentation): I'm not a public speaker, but I'm going to try to do my best. I have a lot to say when I sit in my living room with my friends, and I appreciate the opportunity to say it to you.

In April 1996 we lived in Trenton, Ontario. My husband's career manager asked him, “Do you want to stay or do you want to be posted?” He said “Stay”. A week later he was told “You're posted; do you want east coast or west coast?” He said, “East, please”. Two weeks later we got a message for Esquimalt.

We have no grief with being here. We think everybody should do their duty wherever they're sent. My father was in the military, so I'm used to it. However, we've been told that once you're here, you're here for a long time.

What I would like to see happen is, if you're sent to a place that you really didn't ask.... Some people want to be here their whole career because this is where their family is. We didn't ask to be here. We don't mind doing our time, but there should be a maximum amount of time you have to stay here. We have no hope of ever buying a house here, let alone saving for an education for our two children. We live from pay cheque to pay cheque.

• 1350

Our PMQ here in Esquimalt is a lot lower standard than the one in Trenton. The triple A that we get here doesn't even cover the difference of our PMQ charges, and we had a much nicer PMQ in Trenton.

I believe that somebody living in, say, Greenwood, Nova Scotia, or at any other base who is at the same rank, same trade, should not be able.... God bless them, I'm glad they can save for education and houses, but we should be given the same opportunity. It would make for a very much happier family if you have to come to Esquimalt knowing that you're going to do your time here but in five years you're going to get a break and you will hopefully see the light of day again.

Triple A should also take into consideration that it's not just housing that's more expensive here. We pay almost double for our car insurance, our food, our gas. We live from pay cheque to pay cheque.

As everyone has said, there's a lack of common sense in the Canadian Armed Forces these days. With six months' notice, with my husband begging his superiors, he was not allowed to be home for the birth of our child. I have no family here. They're a thousand miles away. When you have to live from pay cheque to pay cheque, you can't even help fund a family member to fly out to be with you. He didn't appreciate having to be told on his ship that he finally had a son.

I've also been told a study is being implemented or looked at to keep navy with navy, air with air and army with army. In some cases you may have to do that. If you are a hard sea trade, it's pretty hard to work in other places. But when you have a trade that can go anywhere, I think the government should look at sending you to different places, because in that way he'd get a break. If you're stuck with the navy, at least give them the opportunity, if they want, to go to the east coast and get a financial break for a couple of years. Don't stick them on the west coast, saying, you're a west coast sailor and that's it.

Once again, I want to thank you for the opportunity and for listening to us today.

Master Corporal Robert Todd MacNeill (Individual Presentation): I have a couple of quick points.

The point was brought up earlier by one of the speakers that he joined the military to serve the country. That's the same attitude as I had 17 years ago.

Two years ago I was posted to Petawawa. Pardon me if I get a bit emotional here. I was part of the Airborne Regiment at its time of disbandment. I am also a single parent. I have three kids of my own. I was not in Somalia, yet in 1996 I was forced out of Petawawa at the time of disbandment.

It was easy to make ends meet in Petawawa. I paid $325 for my PMQ there. I now pay $750. I am posted aboard ship and just completed a six-month tour overseas.

Again, I joined the military. I follow orders as they're given to me, yet I was basically tried and convicted by the press. It was through no fault of my own. I wasn't in Somalia, yet the order came that the regiment be disbanded and the members sent to the four winds. Well, here I am.

I'd like to see the military have control of the things that go on inside. If we have a problem in the military, the military should have the right and be given the time to sort out its problems—not be tried and convicted in the press, not be told that this is how it's going to be. Commanders should be given the time they need to sort out problems when they're identified, not to be crucified in the newspapers, not for people to be cast aside just to settle political goals.

It's not right. It's not fair to the families. It was hard enough on us members, but it was worse on the families.

As I brought up, I paid $325 for a PMQ in Petawawa. I now pay $750 for a house that is in a worse state, and it is almost impossible to get repairs done. I've made 11 calls for repairs on my PMQ in the year and a half I've been there. I've had two of them settled. I've gone to paying for repairs of my PMQ out of my own pocket.

Enough said. I'm looking at retirement within the next few years. With the downsizing in the military, promotions are not there any more. Ten years ago people were retiring out of the military as warrant officers, chiefs and senior officers. Now we're being forced out of the military at the end of our twenty-year careers as corporals and master corporals, as single parents. Again, we may find work; we may not. Ultimately it's the children of families who are suffering.

• 1355

I'm in a situation right now where I have an individual onboard ship who is much in the same state I am. He came from a low cost of living to a very high cost of living. He pays child support. He has bills. He tries to make ends meet. But as in many situations here with service members, he's found himself with financial problems. Assistance has not been given to him, yet he's been counselled that if he does not get his finances in order, he will be released.

What have we done? We've taken a serving member who was doing well where he was, in a low-cost, low-income area in Moose Jaw, and forced him into a high cost of living area. Now, because he's suffering from a few financial problems, the military wants to release him.

These are the concerns I have. Thank you for your time.

Mr. Bob Wood: You're a single parent. How do you cope?

MCpl Robert Todd MacNeill: Poverty, sir.

Mr. Bob Wood: What about when you're on ship?

MCpl Robert Todd MacNeill: I make ends meet. I pay a nanny with what I have. I do without.

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't know these things. How much would it cost you out of pocket for a nanny when you go on ship, whether it's for a month or—

MCpl Robert Todd MacNeill: I paid approximately $700 a month when I was deployed during my NATO tour. I managed to get some subsidy from the government and I was cut off. They said that because of my income and because of the situation I was in at the time, they helped me out, but I'm on my own now.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Master Corporal, I was interested in one statement. There was reference to another serving member who ran into financial difficulties after the move.

MCpl Robert Todd MacNeill: Yes, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is this the policy of the military for financial problems?

MCpl Robert Todd MacNeill: I think it's been brought up several times already, sir. The military has a vacancy and they slot people where they require the people. Screening is not taking place to ensure that by moving a member into that position he is still going to be an effective serving member. We have people serving in different positions in the military where they can afford to survive, but if you take them into a higher cost of living, their money doesn't go as far and they start to become, as the military puts it, a financial burden. With the release policy and the downsizing they look at it and say, “We have creditors phoning and this person is not able to make his ends meet”. They deal with the problem by not dealing with it, and the member is released. It's financial...I'm not exactly sure what the terminology is.

Now we've taken an effective serving member of the military, reduced him to poverty, and then put him out on the street.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

MCpl Robert Todd MacNeill: Thank you, sir.

Master Seaman Hodges Whittaker (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentlemen, I'm currently serving at fleet maintenance facility.

Although I agree with all of the comments made on the economics, I'm here to talk about the military justice system. In the past year and a half I was falsely accused of a crime. After six months' investigation, etc., when it came out that I was falsely accused, I pointed out to my superiors that I felt I was being accused by somebody who was being vindictive. They agreed off the record; however, I was denied the right to face my accuser. I have yet to find out who accused me of major theft.

• 1400

Last month my wife was falsely accused. I am on a compassionate posting because of the state of my wife's health. This time it only took about three days for the allegations to be proven false. A report was sent from the military police to my commanding officer. I have not seen that report. My wife has not seen that report. When we asked to see that report we were told we had to go through the Privacy Act. However, my commanding officer, my chief, and I don't know who else has seen a report on these allegations made against my wife.

Most people I have talked to—and these are several professional people—have suggested I talk to a lawyer first, or the provincial ombudsman. I don't wish to go that route; I do use the divisional system. However, we're looking at a possible libel suit, breach of confidence. If the RCMP sent a report to somebody else's boss about their spouse, there'd be shit from here to breakfast.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Just one quick question: was your wife in the military?

Master Seaman Hodges Whittaker: My wife is a member of the naval reserve. She is currently on non-active status because of her health.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Chaplain Doug K. Friesen (Individual Presentation): Good morning. I'm Doug Friesen. I'm a chaplain here on the base and I work up in the Belmont Park PMQ area. Also, for the last couple of years I've been organizing the base Christmas hamper project.

I'd like to make two brief points.

In my work in Belmont Park and with the hamper project, one thing that struck me was that all the factors in quality of life are interrelated. What struck me is that some of the people who are most in need were people with family crises or family problems. Often it was a divorce, for example, that pushed a family over the brink from merely struggling to get by to being in real financial trouble.

So I think that what I would say is that in addition to additional income, we also need to support services that support the families, such as the Military Family Resource Centre, which has been an excellent program supporting families, and the social workers. The social worker branch was in danger of being eliminated and we would lose people like Dave Wong, who gave that excellent presentation this morning.

In other words, these factors are interrelated. Financial hardship or difficulties put pressure on the family, but a family breakdown and divorce also can result in increased financial hardship. So they all need to be supported. They're interrelated. I think that's what I'm saying, that supporting a family.... If we can save one family from divorce, that can translate into genuine financial benefits, and vice versa.

The second thing I would like to say is that talking to people in preparing for this SCONDVA meeting, I met with some ambivalent feelings. On the one hand, there's a certain amount of cynicism that a committee will arrive from Ottawa here to help us and then disappear back into the snow in Ottawa. Also, this committee is raising hopes and expectations.

• 1405

I guess what I would hope to see is some concrete result from this process and this committee. I'm afraid if nothing is seen, if nothing happens.... I don't think anyone expects that you will solve all our problems, but I would hope to see some concrete result from the committee. I think that would go a long way to rebuilding trust and respect for the process in Ottawa.

Those are the two things I would like to say.

The Chairman: I believe Mr. Hanger has a question.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, I do.

Chaplain, one thing that really hasn't been stressed is the issue of family break-up. No one has really mentioned divorce. I know it has occurred, because many of the speakers of course relate their own situation. But when it comes to the financial side, is it the stress on family that's causing much of the divorce, or are there other issues involved?

Chaplain Doug Friesen: It's very complex. Many factors are involved. I think the financial stress is one stresser. Certainly in the navy long periods of separation put a great stress on families. Often a posting where a family is posted apart from their extended family and support group is another factor. That's an area that might be addressed as well. For example, if a family's extended family is back in Halifax or Nova Scotia or something, that perhaps is one factor that should be taken into consideration. Very often posting means that you don't have that extended support network for a family.

The finance, the posting, all of these are factors in break-up and divorce. When something like that happens, that has serious financial consequences as well. So they're interrelated.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes. One other point you brought up, and it's been mentioned a few times, I think should be addressed by our committee, actually.

If I may lead the discussion, Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that the people here and those that were here the other night understand the mandate of our committee but also the structure of this committee. I'm going to express it first as a member of the opposition, as I see how the committee functions in Parliament.

There have been a lot of key points brought up here. Every one of us can agree that something significant has to be done. We might even agree on what should be done. But that doesn't mean that when the report goes up the ladder it's going to be listened to. It could be totally rejected. This is reality.

This committee should have more power than it does. Unfortunately, it is not that way. I believe that should be expressed very loud and clear, because I don't want to raise expectations unduly as a committee member or even as an opposition member. I have a function to perform, certainly. I can put pressure on the government to do certain things and try to accomplish a certain end, but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

The other committee members here, because they're the government side, apart from Ms. Venne, can work the scenes behind their closed doors, which I will never know as an opposition member. But the delivery of this message that we have heard here is going to have to take on a different face in a way to be able to accomplish what maybe should be done. I know Mr. Bertrand may want to address it in a further manner, but I as an opposition member will do my part. I think I have an obligation to do my part in delivering this message in Ottawa. I will take those opportunities to do it in the House as they arise, but that does not mean that it's going to happen.

• 1410

Maybe Mr. Bertrand will address it from a government side and as committee chairman—something that he may see as a bright light on the efforts of this committee to push the issue forward and up.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Hanger.

It is true that our committee has only a power of suggestion, but as a member of the defence committee for the last two or three years, I can tell you that prior to the last election this study, done by SCONDVA, was asked for by Minister Doug Young, and it was also reiterated to us by the present Minister of National Defence, Mr. Eggleton. So it is true that we cannot impose whatever recommendations will be in our report, but as members of the government we can use our power of persuasion on the minister to act on the recommendations that will have been made in our report.

I hope that....

Chaplain Doug Friesen: Okay. We wait with expectation to see what will arise. Thank you.

The Chairman: Because of our time constraints, this is the last witness we will be hearing.

Ms. Julie Simons: I'd like to speak to you this morning as a military spouse, as an ex-service person, having served ten years, and in my present capacity as a public servant.

As an service person my employer was Treasury Board. As a public servant today my employer is Treasury Board. However, I would like to bring to your attention some great inequities that I find as a public servant versus military members.

Treasury Board has recognized the need to afford members regional pay. For hourly paid civilian employees there are regional pay differences across the country. That is not so for the military.

As a civilian employee, if I do the job of my superior for any period of time, I am given acting pay. If I am requested or required to work beyond my normal work hours, I am paid overtime. If I need to take my family or my dependant to the doctor or for some appointment, perhaps a school appointment, I am given family-related leave. If I do not choose to take my annual leave at a time that is convenient to myself and my family, I can accumulate that leave.

These are just a few of the differences between being a civilian and being military.

In my present unit we have journeymen civilian employees who are paid approximately $50,000 a year. Beside them, working at the same bench, is a corporal, who is also a journeyman but is paid approximately $36,000 to do exactly the same job.

So as far as your capacity to be a recommending force is concerned, my recommendation to you would be to go back to our employer, which is Treasury Board, and simply request of them that they treat their employees, be they military or civilian, in the same way. We all have the same needs, whether we wear a uniform or not.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Are there any questions? Mr. Pratt.

• 1415

Mr. David Pratt: I don't know if the witness can provide us with a comprehensive answer, but I think she is the first person who has raised the issue of acting pay and the fact that people who are moved into positions on a temporary basis when they're in the Canadian Forces don't get acting pay.

Are you familiar with many situations where this is fairly prolonged or instances where it occurs on a fairly regular basis?

Ms. Julie Simons: Absolutely. In the military it would be commonplace that if your superior went away on holidays, oftentimes the next senior subordinate would be expected to act in their capacity.

I would also suggest to you that with the restrictions of the next ATS on posting, where replacements are not going to be available for people who take retirement, especially at the senior levels, that will happen more and more often and people will not be compensated.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

This would conclude our session for this morning. If there is anybody else who would be interested in offering their views, they can do so in writing, sending it to our attention in Ottawa, and we will make sure it gets on the record.

Again, I would like to thank everyone for your comments and your input. It was most appreciated.

I would also like again, on behalf of the committee and the support staff, to thank you very much for your hospitality.