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]

Wednesday, January 28, 1998

• 1338

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.

I'd just like to introduce myself. My name is Robert Bertrand, and I am chair of the national defence committee. We are here to listen to your views and your input, but before we do any of that, I would ask General Ross to say a few words.

In our previous sessions, just to give you an idea of how we do things, we have a few people who will make presentations and then we will ask members of the panel here if they have any questions. I've been told there are two people who have presentations to make. It should take a few minutes, but after that, we will turn the microphones over to you and whatever you feel like saying, just go ahead and say it.

[Translation]

I would like to tell those who wish to ask their questions in French to feel free to do so.

• 1340

[English]

There are translating units near the wall. If anybody wants to get one of those units, you just go over there and they will give them to you.

I will ask the members on the panel to identify themselves, please.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): My name is David Pratt. I'm the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, which is just outside the Ottawa area and one of the areas recently affected by the ice storm.

Ms. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm Judi Longfield. I'm the member of Parliament for the Ontario riding of Whitby—Ajax, which is just east of metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I'm Bob Wood. I represent the riding of Nipissing, which takes in the base at North Bay, and I'm the Vice-Chairman of the committee.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Art Hanger, Reform Party defence critic.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I'm John Richardson. I'm Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence and a member of the committee.

The Chairman: Thank you very much to all of you.

We will now go with our first presenter, Colonel Andrew Leslie.

Colonel Andrew Leslie (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the panel, my presentation concerns a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. As you may know, over the last while the soldiers of the Canadian Forces received incremental pay increases which quite frankly were not well managed, either in the amount the soldiers actually received or in the methods by which the information concerning them was disseminated.

With your concurrence, I would like to give you a brief audio clip from a show called This Hour Has 22 Minutes, which is based on the performance of the soldiers and the outstanding work they did in assisting the civil populace of Quebec over the last couple of weeks. May I proceed?

The Chairman: Certainly.

[Editor's Note: Video presentation]

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Sir, I will follow up with several very quick points. We've already discussed some of them this morning, but I felt it germane to bring them out in front of the soldiers.

We send soldiers overseas in a brigade just under 5,000 strong. We've sent about 3,000 people overseas in the last 12 months.

Earlier this morning we addressed the problems of pay. Quite frankly, I think our soldiers—I know they will agree—deserve a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. I believe a minimum of 15% would be the least the Government of Canada could provide as additional remuneration for its soldiers.

• 1345

Within the DND budget of $10 billion, I think a long, hard look has to be taken as to what it is we actually do. And if we recognize that the brigade groups and those personnel who support them and the people who go to sea in the ships and those who fly the airplanes and immediately support them are our product, the reason we are here, then we're all sure that economies can be made at the centre, which will give more resources to remunerate the soldiers for a fair day's work.

So the recommendation is a 15% pay increase across the board in one lump sum.

Sir, that concludes my presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Are there any questions? Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

The message about how inadequately we pay our armed forces has not gone unnoticed. We are hearing this over and over. I want to move from that somewhat but still deal with compensation and the opportunity for advancement.

We've been hearing since we left Trenton on Friday that there's very little opportunity for advancement, very little opportunity to move through the ranks. We also heard that in some cases people don't necessarily want to leave the job they are doing, but they want some compensation with respect to skills and knowledge in their payment schedules. Can you give me some insight into how you think we might compensate people at levels they are currently in?

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Yes, ma'am, I can, but it would only be my opinion, and the room is full of individual experts. Do you want me to proceed?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Well we could start with your opinion, and if others disagree they'll be at the mike giving their point of view.

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Oh, they will. They're not shy. Trust me; I know.

With regard to career progression, the vast majority of soldiers, due to downsizing, have had their careers essentially frozen in place for the last several years. As downsizing continues and as alternate service delivery options are further explored, when we contract out those vital services that we need to sustain ourselves for overseas operations, quite frankly this situation will probably worsen. We have several organizations in the brigade where soldiers should have been sergeants five or six years ago, but they're still stuck in the rank of corporal.

This has a negative effect, not only on morale but also on their operational efficiency, because in certain cases we have soldiers—corporals, bombardiers, master corporals—who are doing the jobs of sergeants and warrant officers. They're qualified to do it, but of course they don't have the rank, and right now our pay structure is tied to rank.

So yes, I think some innovative thought has to be given to essentially qualifying people for the experience levels they have attained and the qualifications they have pursued and successfully achieved under ruthless competitive circumstances. The army, the air force, and the navy all essentially follow the same training methodologies, and it's very competitive. And it's heartbreaking to the soldiers to see, after completing a CLC course or a JLC or an advanced whatever, that in fact they can't get remuneration, nor do they get a chance to use those skills and be recognized for their skill proficiency through some form of recompense.

Does that answer the question?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That helps, yes.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Colonel, are you aware that the budget set for the military is not $10 billion, but $9.2 billion?

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Yes, sir, I am aware that there has been a decrease. I wasn't aware that next year's budget was down to $9.2 billion.

Mr. Art Hanger: Well, that's allegedly going to be the bottom of it, but I don't think that is an absolutely certain fact. So what is another billion dollars going to do coming out of the overall military picture, from your perspective?

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Sir, it depends on how the cuts are applied. If I may refer to my earlier comment, we have to—we being the Canadian Forces and more importantly the leadership or the elected officials who govern our lives, because we do what you want us to do, we do what you tell us to do.... You ladies and gentlemen have to decide for yourselves what it is you want the Canadian Forces to do.

I submit, in my personal opinion, that we have far too much infrastructure in the centre and we've gotten away from the core values and the core activities armed forces must be expected to perform. Those are, quite frankly, the brigade groups, both regular and reserve, the ships that go to sea and the planes and helicopters that fly and the people immediately supporting them.

• 1350

I'm not an expert on NDHQ. I don't wish to become one, either. That's addressed to General Ross, because he controls me for next year.

To my mind, some cold, hard logic has to be applied as to how we are spending our dollars. We have new kit coming on line. I'm a professional soldier; I'll take every dollar you can give me and turn it into either kit or pay, and you have to decide how much is enough. With $9.2 billion, it seems to me that we have enough money within the DND envelope to give our soldiers fair pay for a fair day's work. Quite frankly, they are not getting it now.

Does that answer your question, sir?

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, it does.

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Once again, I'm not an expert, but I think $9.2 billion is enough to generate three brigade groups, to keep the reserves where they have to be and to keep our ships at sea and our planes and helicopters flying.

It's time to take a long, hard look at the other stuff we do. What that other stuff is in the centre I'm not qualified to voice an opinion on.

Mr. David Pratt: Colonel Leslie, earlier today, when we had an opportunity to chat, you mentioned that we were losing soldiers hand over fist in terms of people who were leaving the armed forces with a high degree of training and a great deal of experience. I didn't have an opportunity then to quiz you on that, but can you try to put some numbers on that in terms of percentages?

Before I give up the mike, I would also like to share with the people who are here some of the comments that we had about the incremental pay issue at earlier hearings. The comment that came back to us, I think in Esquimalt, was “You are giving us just enough in terms of incremental pay increases to piss us off”. I would certainly like to hear some of the comments of the soldiers that are here today on that subject as well.

If you could address the issue of losing personnel in terms of the investment that we have in these soldiers, that would be helpful.

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Yes, sir. Once again, I can only really give my impression of 1CMBG, 1 Brigade, because anything outside of that is outside of my sandbox. With that caveat, I'll carry on.

In 1 Brigade, on average we lose three to four hundred soldiers a year. The numbers are much higher now, and it becomes especially critical at the senior NCO levels.

Senior NCOs are—there's no argument—the heart of the army. They are the people who take the concepts that are derived by the officers and turn them into cold, hard fact, because they are the ones with the hands-on experience and the hands-on leadership skills that are needed to get the soldiers all going in the same direction.

When a young man or woman joins the forces at age 20 and makes $16,000, $17,000 or $18,000 a year in recruit training, that, for most of them, is sufficient. It's tough, but most of them are single. By the time they are at age 30 and they are now a master corporal or 35 and a sergeant or a warrant officer—if they are very lucky, because of earlier discussions we've had—they have two to three members in their immediate family and they are not making enough to make ends meet.

On Civvy Street, the great world outside the brigade boundaries, soldiers are a very attractive commodity, because they are self-confident, they are disciplined, they are willing to work their hearts out, as was demonstrated in both Bosnia and Quebec. A lot of them have unique skills, and they are being snapped up. That trend is going to continue.

I, as a formation commander, am getting increasingly worried that our investment in our soldiers is essentially being frittered away through short-term blinkers and the fact that we are not paying our people enough money to keep them in the forces.

None of us joined the armed forces to get rich. We all know that, and if any of us in the room have made that mistake, then we have learned. We join out of a sense of pride of serving our country for whatever personal motivators are at work. But there comes a time when especially the senior NCOs have to take a hard look at the fiscal realities, having to move all the time, their wives being unable to get or keep jobs because they're in the forces. They have to say, “Well, I owe it to my family to seek an easier life that will pay more and I won't have to be away so often”.

• 1355

I don't want to give the impression—and soldiers are not shy, they'll speak for themselves—that the soldiers don't like going overseas. They like going overseas, most of them. We have volunteers for most of the positions. In certain key trades, though, a lot of our people are meeting themselves coming back from operational tours, mainly the support side and the engineers. And once again, those are high-value items to Civvy Street.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Colonel.

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I probably know this answer before I ask it, but I'd like to hear it from you, sir, because I think it would make it a little easier to make our case on helping out the armed forces. I'd just like to know the pay scale, if it's possible, compared with some of our allies. You've probably had the opportunity to travel and talk to various other armed forces personnel in other countries. How do we compare to other countries?

Colonel Andrew Leslie: Sir, I have served in theatres where there have been Kenyans, Russians, Jordanians. We are extremely well paid in comparison to them. On the other hand, they do not have the same costs of living that we do.

Now, in the western world, I am not an expert. I am not a finance officer. But I am willing to speak into the microphone, and I know this is going on the record. I suspect that we are the lowest remunerated of all the countries in the western world.

Americans, for example, get a whole variety of additional benefits that we don't. We all know that we have a very good health care system. In the States, that's all done through private insurance, which is covered by the armed forces. In the U.S. Army—I can't speak for the navy or air force—I know that you can get a significant mortgage interest-free to buy your home.

Essentially, in the British Army, what a captain makes in the Canadian Army a lieutenant would make in the British. So they're at least one pay level higher. And the gap is even more extreme for the soldiers.

So once again with the caveat that I'm not an expert, I suspect we're the worst remunerated in the western world.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I would now call on Major Bruce Henwood, please.

Major Bruce Henwood (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, honourable members of Parliament.

I view today as an opportunity to explain first-hand some of the difficulties members of the Canadian Forces encounter if they become injured in the line of duty. Thankfully, we do not have many casualties to contend with. However, given the nature of our business, becoming a casualty is a reality that must be dealt with.

I realize you are examining all aspects of military life, with a view to recommending improvements. The area that I am going to discuss is little known, unless you have become intimately involved in it, as I have. We must address the care of our injured very carefully, as there are serious implications if we fail to do so.

I stand before you here today because there are problems within the Canadian Forces in the way they handle their casualties. I strongly feel there is a moral obligation for the Canadian Forces to look after their injured. Failure to do so could lead to serious morale problems. We cannot afford to have our soldiers, if ordered into harm's way, having a feeling that if they are injured, they will be forgotten. Their performance may be degraded if they have second thoughts.

There are many areas, in my opinion, that need to be corrected or adjusted. You will probably receive later a small hand-out that I have prepared listing the areas of concern that I don't have time to talk about today. Today I will focus on what I deem to be the four most important areas of concern: the service income security insurance plan, or SISIP to my colleagues-in-arms, their coverage and benefits; immediate post-injury administration and support; long-term administration and support; and support from Veterans Affairs Canada.

I will not try to explain every policy, but I'll try to demonstrate anecdotally the problems as I have encountered them. Fortunately, I am one of the lucky ones. There are many horror stories out there from soldiers who have been injured that we've not heard.

• 1400

Before I start, let me just say that there's an overwhelming sense of abandonment by the system, the system being the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. I was speaking to a young soldier who suffered similar injuries to my own. You may not be aware of my injuries; I'm not sure if all the people here are. I was blown up in Yugoslavia. The stuff on my face is minor. I have no legs, courtesy of a Russian TMA3 mine. These are prostheses I'm standing on. So I think I know where I'm coming from.

I was speaking to a young soldier who had similar injuries to my own, and I asked him, after sensing some frustration, what he expected and wanted from the military. You know, all he wanted was a piece of paper outlining his benefits and a handshake. We as an army, an extension of government, couldn't even do this. This is a sad state of affairs in which we find ourselves. I made a vow to myself I would not let it happen to me.

SISIP has been the greatest disappointment that I've encountered since being injured. For years I was saying to my wife, “If I am hurt or killed, don't worry, SISIP will look after us”. It was only after I was injured that I found out that SISIP has failed me completely.

I wonder how many letters and calls have been made to mom saying “Don't worry, the army has insurance”. Indeed, SISIP is sold that way. You'll get a photocopy of the handout from the SISIP manual. It sounds very impressive. It goes something like this: “The Canadian Forces group insurance plan, life and disability insurance designed for the Canadian Forces”. It sounds impressive. It alleviates a lot of fears. But it is false. I won't go as far as to say it's a lie; I'll stop at false.

It's an income security plan designed to guarantee the soldier or his survivors 75% of his or her present income, which is reduced by other federal pension plans. I do not qualify for any income supplement because I receive a medical pension through Veterans Affairs, and I will receive a military pension when I am discharged in about one month's time. These pensions will exceed the 75% level that SISIP is mandated to top up to.

This I understand well, and I accept it, no questions asked. However, ask any soldier in this room, and I hope they speak up later, what he or she believes SISIP is and you'll get another impression. They've been misled, I guarantee you. I'm not disputing what SISIP is and what it is designed for—an income security plan. What I have a problem with is how some of the benefits are structured within the plan.

After I was hurt I read the portion that I felt applied to me, the accidental dismemberment benefit. Strangely enough, unlike other insurance plans, the dismemberment benefit is paid based on qualifying for the income supplement. It is not paid upon loss. Consequently, my legs are worth less than someone else's. Mine, according to SISIP, are worth nothing. I have received and I will receive absolutely no benefits from SISIP whatsoever.

The SISIP dismemberment benefit for coverage after release, once I'm out, pays on actual loss, not on qualifying income. So there are discrepancies even within the SISIP program.

I attended a SISIP briefing at a SCAN seminar, and without my knowledge or permission the briefer presented my case as an example and explained to all the soldiers and their spouses present that I received a dismemberment benefit. This is a lie. This is misleading and clearly wrong.

SISIP officials will claim—and you will ask them, I know you will, or I hope you will—that they are not an insurance company: We're not insurance; I don't know what he's talking about. Yet they are structured like one, promote themselves like one, they are administered by one, called the Maritime Life Assurance Company, and they use the same definitions and terminology as insurance companies.

The SISIP package needs to be renamed so as not to mislead the troops. It needs to be better explained so all are aware of its limitations. Finally, benefits such as the dismemberment benefit must be brought in line with other insurance companies and pay some sort of compensation based on actual loss and not on qualifying income.

• 1405

My second area of concern is what I call immediate post-injury administration and support. Every day I thank God I was not brain-damaged in the explosion. I've been able to use my 22 years of experience in the military, and to a certain degree my rank, to ensure that my needs and the needs of my family are looked after. However, had I been incapable of doing this, my wife would not have known who to ask, what to ask for, or where to go.

When I was in intensive care on a heavy dose of morphine—for the medical people around here, I think it was around 20 milligrams an hour; I don't know if that's a lot or not, but I was told it was—I had some IVs, those little needles in your arms, and some monitors doing my heartbeat and all that. I was visited by a very senior officer, more senior than those here right now, who was concerned, I hope, about my well-being. I hope he wasn't coming out of curiosity. After a short discussion, he told me if I needed anything, just to ask for it.

I was quite upset about that, and I am still upset about it today. Here I was, in intensive care—I might even have been on life support, for all I know—and now I was responsible for determining the needs of my family and my needs. I was on drugs. How the hell would I know?

This officer passed the monkey, and he walked away with his conscience clear. We talk about a crisis in command. Here's a clear example of where the senior leadership have abrogated their responsibility and have walked away clear-minded. The onus was on me, on life support in the hospital, to figure out what my wife needed, 1,000 kilometres away.

I hope he didn't say it intentionally, but the damage has been done, as you can tell from my tone. For a person who was very seriously injured, VSI, as I was, there are many things that needed to be done. The Canadian Forces, and indeed some individuals within the forces, are superb—there are no questions asked about supporting the injured—superb, once the need has been identified. The problem is identifying the need.

There is a certain amount of lowering one's self-esteem when you continually ask for help or assistance. What is needed is an aide-mémoire or a checklist, which could be given to the family, or to the member, if he's capable of understanding. On this checklist would be all the services DND is ready and willing to offer, ranging from transportation needs to modifications of a house. The family may not know how to get support, especially if the injured person cannot talk. However, from the checklist the family would be able to identify very quickly the support they need, and they could do it in a manner that is not demeaning or begging in nature.

The next point I have identified is immediate financial support. It cost me, within the first year of being injured, in excess of $12,000 to get myself back on my feet again. No one in this room has $12,000 to throw away, I guarantee you that.

I was able to do it by some tight budgeting. I was in the hospital, so I wasn't eating at home. But I had no support. I needed things such as babysitting costs so my wife could come to the hospital, transportation costs for hospital parking passes, specialized furnishings at home, just to name a few. There was no help. Fortunately, as I said, I was able to budget and get through some tough times until my medical pension started.

I even had to replace my vehicle. Unforecasted, unbudgeted...I had to replace it, because I could not get into the one I had. You don't replace a vehicle just willy-nilly. You plan in advance. I had no time to do budgeting or planning. It was thrown at me.

What I'm saying is some immediate financial support should be provided by DND. The support provided would go a long way towards showing some level of corporate responsibility by the government and the military.

Finally, on the immediate post-injury support portion, you will probably hear a lot about family resource centres, or FRCs, as they're called, and the services they offer to the military community. We never heard from the FRC in Gagetown until about four months after I was injured. They sent a get-well card, as if I were sick or my legs were going to grow back.

• 1410

What we could have used from the FRC was emergency home care, similar to what was placed in Lahr, Germany, back in the 1980s. This emergency service would have included babysitting, some emergency meal preparation and transportation.

My wife wrecked her van driving through a blizzard to see me in the hospital. If someone had driven her, it might have been a lot better.

When asked about emergency services, all FRC said was to contact the commercial home care services in the yellow pages, at $21 an hour. No one here can afford that.

I do not call this support; rather, I call it a disappointing letdown. We are putting a lot of money into FRCs, but they are incapable of assisting the family in a serious crisis. How sad.

The third area of concern I'd like to touch upon is what I call the long-term administration and support. Injuries such as the ones I sustained never go away. They are permanent. This means a complete change in lifestyle.

I have had two lives: one before September 27, 1995, and one since. The two lives are completely different. I have lost my health to a certain degree, or else the military wouldn't be throwing me out. I've lost my career. I've lost income. I do not wear the same clothes any more; I wear specialized stuff. My appearance has changed. I've changed cities. I've lost certain abilities to do things with my wife and my kids. The list goes on. My life has changed completely.

I consider myself to be one of the lucky ones, in that I have the support of a wife and three young sons who need their dad.

What has been lacking from the military is some sort of formalized job placement, counselling and long-term planning. Fortunately, I've secured a new job, but there were no offers of retraining, no offers of support in finding employment—nothing, except for the old boys network.

I feel that DND has a moral obligation to assist in the transition from military life to civilian life, especially when it is unplanned. To date the only official thing I've received from DND has been my release message. Thank you very much.

SISIP has rehabilitation services, but they determined, since I have a university degree, that I do not need support of their services. I was truly, and still am, on my own.

What is seriously lacking is some sort of closure. The definition of closure is nebulous, but the way I put it is closing a chapter in a book and moving on.

DND has to formalize the way in which soldiers who are injured are compensated and then retired. There should be some sort of special injury retirement package proportionate to the severity of injury. That would go a long way toward closure.

The last area I have pertains to my experiences with Veterans Affairs. Fortunately, all of you out here haven't had to contend with them yet. Wait for it; your day will come.

First and foremost—before I slam them—I feel that we have a superb veterans package. How it is administered is where it can use some improvement.

When dealing with Veterans Affairs, I get the feeling I'm just another case file. They are very bureaucratic. They do not answer your written correspondence. They don't phone you unless you phone them and leave ten messages. Veterans Affairs has lost its raison d'être, which is to support Canada's veterans.

My example hopefully will clearly demonstrate to you how Veterans Affairs has lost touch with reality. Before I was injured, I used to have a waterbed. After being discharged from the hospital, I found I could not get into or out of the bed. Try it some time without using your legs; it's hard. Do it in a waterbed; it's virtually impossible. I needed my wife to help me get in and out. So the only natural thing I did was replace the bed. It was the best decision I ever made. I'm now independent in getting in and out of bed. In case of fire at the house, for one thing, I feel secure now.

Veterans Affairs assisted in modifying my house in Gagetown before I moved here. They paid for certain aids to daily living, like grab bars, wider doors, even a reclining chair so I could sit and watch TV comfortably. Naturally I felt they should reimburse me for a bed. The ruling, after I appealed it four times, to the highest level in Charlottetown, was that a bed is not a medical requirement, and therefore they would not reimburse my costs. Something as basic as a bed will not be covered by one of the best veterans packages in the world.

Even stranger, Veterans Affairs will pay to have your primary residence modified to meet your pension condition, such as wider doors, extra banisters on stairs, wheelchair ramps, raised toilets, grab bars, modified showers, intercom.... The list goes on; it's long when you're in the world of the handicapped.

• 1415

When I moved to Alberta I built my retirement home. I was being retired from the military. In planning the new home I queried Veterans Affairs as to what sort of financial support I would get for various handicap features that I was planning to install. I was told that since it was a new home I was responsible for all custom modifications. I said, “What if I don't put them in but have them installed later?” They said they would pay. It costs three times as much to modify a house as to have it incorporated in a new home construction.

Again, I was on my own. I have built everything I need as a double amputee, as it only made sense. It appears that Veterans Affairs is very bureaucratic and does not understand the needs of its clients.

In short, I have tried to illustrate some of the frustrations, difficulties, and expenses those who are injured incur as a direct result of their injuries. I feel, as I mentioned earlier, that there are many issues that revolve around closure. Closure, as I said, means completing unfinished business, closing a chapter, turning a new leaf. I do not feel as if I've been properly compensated by the military for services rendered. I cannot close the book.

I feel that certain elements of the SISIP program are discriminatory and in need of improvement to ensure that all clients are properly serviced. The military needs to take the lead in caring for its injured through a support matrix and long-term support. I feel that Veterans Affairs needs to work in closer conjunction with the injured to ensure their needs are covered. I feel that if I've experienced these situations, conditions, and emotions, then heaven help the soldiers who have not spoken up. We have failed them when they've needed us the most.

The number of injured modern-day veterans are few. Unfortunately, when there are few voices, seldom are they heard. I hope today I have spoken on behalf of those voices that need to be heard.

Within the military are Veterans Affairs and government. There is much to be done to ensure the needs of the injured are looked after. Our country in its time of need will call upon soldiers to do their duty, whatever the cost. It is the moral obligation of our country to support its soldiers when they're injured and in their hour of need. We cannot abandon the injured any longer and hope that other elements of society will look after them.

For 22 years I was trained to circle the wagons outwards to face the enemy. Sadly, only now do I feel that the enemy is within and I am fighting for my life. I pray to God that SCONDVA, with its recommendations, will go a long way to correcting my sentiments.

I thank you for your patience. I've never been so compelled in my life to correct what I perceive to be inconsistencies, oversights, and abandonment. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Major. Would it be possible for you to give a copy of your notes to the clerk?

Major Bruce Henwood: I have done so.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Now we will go to questions and comments from the panel, if there are any. Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Major, thank you for your presentation. That was, in my opinion at least, a very moving one, and a very difficult one to swallow, to think that these events and your needs have not been looked after in an adequate fashion. I see that there is much to address.

• 1420

One issue you brought up dealt with the family resource centre. I know there are certain funds allotted to the centres. It was my impression that in fact they filled in where the needs are the most significant, especially in the area of the family and family support.

I think you indicated that in your situation you were away from home and your family was 1,000 miles away. You felt let down by the family resource centre.

Major Bruce Henwood: Not me; my wife.

Mr. Art Hanger: Your family. Fair enough. I would think it would impact on you too.

Is this the general consensus with the family resource centre and their supportive role? I find it rather odd that there isn't more of an effort put forward in that regard. Is that pretty common?

Major Bruce Henwood: I can't comment on the experience of others; I can only comment on what has happened to me. I hope I was the guy who fell through the cracks. Maybe they felt majors could handle these things but other people could not. I don't know. So I can't comment on FRCs across the country, but they failed me.

Mr. Art Hanger: Sitting in a briefing this morning.... Of course, there were other support levels, certainly the padre, and I understand there were a number of padres on staff, social workers, and agencies. Were they not in any way effective?

Major Bruce Henwood: No, sir. The only padre we saw was the one who knocked on my door and told my wife I was injured.

Mr. Art Hanger: You've had a very serious injury, which is going to be life-lasting. I know there are other soldiers, other military personnel, who have experienced similar situations. Some will not even be able to address their situation because they are no longer capable of doing that.

It's the whole area of compensation after injury. There may be a basic medical compensation, but the needs of those who are suffering from the most serious injuries don't seem to be addressed. You've expressed one situation—you are able to articulate it—but I know others who cannot articulate this. Their spouses might have to, and their spouses seem to be in a desperate struggle, if you will, to deal with this whole compensation package.

From your point of view, what would be the most significant, streamlined, efficient way of dealing with a situation like this, one you have yourself? It seems as though there are so many different tentacles regarding the compensation side that one situation doesn't fit all needs.

Major Bruce Henwood: I see the response in two parts. The first part is immediate. What I propose, and I've mentioned it before, is it has to be proportionate with the seriousness of the injury. There should be some sort of grant, no questions asked, in the thousands of dollars. In my experience, it was $12,000 in one year. So there should be a grant commensurate with the injury—$5,000, $10,000, $12,000, whatever the amount—that the government deems appropriate. That would be immediate and would alleviate any of the financial hardships the family may encounter.

The second one is that we are very good at structuring retirement packages. Everyone wants to make that 20-year mark. After the 20-year mark, you have to make that 28-year mark, and after that you're good until you're 55.

We also have FRP, or the force reduction packages. These are the golden handshakes that one aspires to reach certain windows, or if you're in a certain trade and downsized you'll be given a severance package. If you're injured, you will get whatever entitlements you have at the time of injury in the normal pension or retirement package that DND has. I'm suggesting here that there should be some sort of release or injury retirement package for those who fit the window. Not necessarily everybody would be entitled to something—and this is something from DND. This is not a Veterans Affairs medical pension. This is a DND retirement package that would then put closure...or you could say, “I've done my duty and I've been put out to pasture.” The stuff from Veterans Affairs is medical, pain and compensation, suffering, and all that stuff. There has to be something tangible from the army. Right now, if you get blown up, you get a release message and they wash their hands of you.

• 1425

Mr. Art Hanger: There was a young soldier, I think he was a corporal in Bosnia...the APC in which he was riding rolled. I believe he was only wearing a beret at the time, no helmet. As a result of that roll he struck his head on the metal frame, I understand, and was permanently injured. He was compensated, or his family I guess would be compensated, to the tune of $3,000 a month.

Major Bruce Henwood: From Veterans Affairs?

Mr. Art Hanger: That's correct. Nothing came from the DND side.

Major Bruce Henwood: I cannot comment on his case, but there's nothing in DND. If he received compensation, it was from another federal department, Veterans Affairs. I also receive a medical pension from DVA.

Mr. Art Hanger: But nothing from DND.

Major Bruce Henwood: No, and some people will lump the two together and say that Veterans Affairs is an extension of DND and therefore you have been compensated. I feel the package I receive from Veterans Affairs is part of the social safety network that all veterans are entitled to, commensurate with the severity of their injury. But I have not received any tangible...none, actually, other than a release message, from DND. So I'm supposed to walk away from 22 years and say thank you?

Mr. Art Hanger: I have another question. I don't know if you're in a position to answer this particular question, but for injuries that are suffered while on duty—they're not of a nature as you have experienced; they're less serious but they still may plague a member for his lifetime—how difficult is it for DND to identify those injuries or, if it is the case, for the member to get it across to DND that there's an injury and they should be given consideration for that injury upon retirement, or even before?

Major Bruce Henwood: We have to look at several issues. First of all, if you are injured in a special duty area, such as Croatia, you are entitled to a medical pension through DVA. If you are injured in Canada, you are not, until you retire. There's an apple and an orange conundrum here.

On the second aspect.... Could you repeat the question?

Mr. Art Hanger: If a member suffers an injury and it's not one that incapacitates him but he may have to go through his career with that particular injury and he's still suffering from it, what is his compensation once that injury is identified, or can it be identified as such in order for him to receive compensation, while he's serving and when he retires?

Major Bruce Henwood: Before I answer that, let me just say one thing.

• 1430

The military spares no expense in medical recovery. I feel I've received the best medical treatment possible, which goes a long way to alleviating.... I was not thrown out to pasture here. I was looked after medically.

So the first issue is identifying the problem. If the individual knows what it is and can bring it to the proper attention of the medical authorities, it will be treated. I'm convinced of that. If it's something less measurable—post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, for one—it is hard to measure the depth of the injury. While a member is still serving, he'll be expected to carry on doing his work, be it a hearing loss or a vision loss or some mental incapacitation or maybe some minor physical loss. While he is still in, he will receive medical treatment. He cannot apply for a medical pension until he is released.

By the way, the medical pension is not retroactive. It starts the day you apply. A lot of people don't know that.

Mr. Art Hanger: It starts when?

Major Bruce Henwood: The day you apply, not the day of the injury.

Mr. David Pratt: Major Henwood, you've certainly given us a lot to think about, and we appreciate your comments and your frankness.

I've been a member of this committee for five months now, and forgive me if I ask some simplistic questions that probably have easy answers for you but on which I don't have information.

When you were injured, did you have a person assigned to your case that you could go to, regardless of whether it was a pension issue or a medical issue or special assistance, or did you have to chase down the officials yourself and make the telephone calls, file the appeals and so on? If you didn't have a single point of contact, would you have benefited from that type of an approach?

Major Bruce Henwood: I did not have a single point of contact. I wish I had.

I remember saying to my wife while I was at NDMC, “Go find somebody that knows something about pensions, because we're screwed”. She went off and found a clerk in the hospital orderly room who knew somebody who knew somebody. A guy from the Legion came over, and he became my link to Veterans Affairs.

What we need is a.... It exists right now. There's a 1-800 number in Ottawa where they've tried to put some sort of single point of contact, but all it is is an answering machine. I'm not going to leave a voice mail on specific circumstances about myself to 1-800 who-knows-what.

Mr. David Pratt: So you clearly would have benefited from having a person who was there, a person whose face you knew—

Major Bruce Henwood: Definitely.

Mr. David Pratt: —so you weren't just talking to voice mail or somebody 3,000 miles away.

The Chairman: Major, were you given a lump sum for the loss of your limbs?

Major Bruce Henwood: I received zero, sir.

The Chairman: Just your pension from DVA?

Major Bruce Henwood: Correct.

The Chairman: Are you still covered by DND's insurance plan?

Major Bruce Henwood: Today?

The Chairman: Today.

Major Bruce Henwood: Yes, I am. It's mandatory. I am still paying into supplementary death benefits and long-term disability, even though I do not qualify for LTD benefits. It's mandatory.

Mr. Art Hanger: As another point of clarification, is this compensation package, if you want to call it that, advertised as an insurance policy?

Major Bruce Henwood: You could call it whatever you want. In fact if someone were to design the package, perhaps the individual could pay more to get a higher level of coverage, or a lesser amount if they thought the risk was minor.

• 1435

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm trying to determine if this is something that was crafted by DND, or is it an insurance policy that is managed by an insurance company?

Major Bruce Henwood: Are you talking about SISIP, sir?

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

Major Bruce Henwood: SISIP is a DND-run insurance plan that is administered by Maritime Life Assurance out of Halifax. The president of SISIP works in NDHQ.

Mr. Art Hanger: So you're saying this package is being sold one way, but it really does not cover all circumstances when it comes to compensation. The members are led to believe that it's one way when in fact it is not that way at all.

Major Bruce Henwood: That is my feeling.

Mr. Art Hanger: All right.

Major Bruce Henwood: If it says “insurance” on the cover and all it is providing is term life insurance that you pay for, and the rest is disability if you fit the insurance terminology, then the package needs to be reworked, or at least renamed. It has the word “insurance” in the title. It's an income guarantee plan with a term insurance rider that you can purchase extra on the side. I have no qualms with the rider, because I'm in that, as probably a lot of people in this room are, and you pay extra a month for it.

The basic coverage, long-term disability, supplementary death benefits, or whatever they call them in SISIP, as I said, is mandatory. You would think that would cover the needs of its personnel. But clearly it is not structured in the same light as.... They'll crucify me for making the comparison, but if you buy—because with most insurance companies you have to buy—a dismemberment benefit or rider in a civilian insurance package, I don't know what you pay, but the benefit or the compensation is paid on loss, not on how much money you make—

Mr. Art Hanger: That's right.

Major Bruce Henwood: —or not how much pension money the government gives you. There's a big difference.

If they have the terminology “dismemberment benefit” in their insurance package and they're not paying it out, no wonder we have had reductions in our SISIP premiums. Everyone has been saying the plan has been so successful that over the last 15 years our premiums have been reduced—because they don't pay out.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you for that explanation.

I'm going to make a comparison here so that I can get your acknowledgement on whether I'm totally accurate on this particular point.

I was a member of the Calgary police department for 22 years. There were three insurance policies. One guaranteed income: if I was shot or killed in some fashion while on duty, my wife was guaranteed a certain percentage of my income. If I was injured, there were determined compensation packages for losses of limbs, injuries of various kinds. They were spelled out; they were clear. Everyone knew where they stood on that particular point.

What you're explaining to me here is that there is no.... I would have to suggest that the military are probably subject to more forms of injury because of the equipment you work with, but there seems to be a reluctance to compensate people if they lose a hand or if they lose their legs or have some other permanently disabling injury. Am I reading this right? There is no compensation there at all?

Major Bruce Henwood: From DND there is no compensation. It is tied to the amount that SISIP has to top up your income. Let me give you an example. The numbers aren't right. If you're a corporal and you lose both legs, as I had happen to me, and they determine that between your veterans package and your military package, if you even had enough time to get a pension through the military, SISIP was obligated to top up your income by $100 a month, to bring you up to 75%, your dismemberment benefit will be that $100 times 36 months. The next person might be $110 times 36 months. Mine was zero times the length of time. It's not fixed to loss; it is fixed to qualifying income.

• 1440

Mr. Art Hanger: Is your case closed?

Major Bruce Henwood: I have just started.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Major.

The Chairman: I have a few more questions for you myself, and I probably should know the answer.

If you are injured and you become temporarily disabled, for instance in an automobile accident, does regular pay continue if you're in the military?

Major Bruce Henwood: Yes.

The Chairman: Why would you need long-term disability? Why pay for it if your salary just keeps on going?

Major Bruce Henwood: Your salary stops when they discharge you.

The Chairman: But then you no longer qualify for LTD, for long-term disability.

Major Bruce Henwood: If you work for the insurance company—Maritime Life, or SISIP, or whoever—what they will say is if you leave the military and you are not employable within your trade on Civvy Street, they will offer rehabilitation and training to get you there.

In my case, they said you have a university degree, you have all your faculties, go forth, young man. If you had a mental injury, or were a paraplegic or a quadriplegic, they would then have to invoke their insurance terminology—and SISIP will do that—to define totally disabled. In order to be covered for LTD benefits, you must be totally disabled.

Basically, if you're a quadriplegic and you can see and you could hook up a computer screen to react to the movement of your eyes, I guess you're not totally disabled. So it's a matter of interpretation. SISIP will fall back onto its insurance definitions and terminologies when it needs to, but they say they're not an insurance company.

The Chairman: I used to work for an insurance company, and the rider you're talking about is called “accidental death and dismemberment”. In most policies it is clearly written what you would receive if you would lose certain limbs. If you lose, for instance, one leg, you would get x amount of dollars; if you lose both legs, it's doubled. So I appreciate your comments. It is something we will be definitely looking at in the future.

Major Bruce Henwood: It is very important. If it doesn't work for me, I mean, luck of the draw; but for everyone in this room, they have to be very sure in their own minds that if something unthinkable.... I didn't go to Yugoslavia thinking I would come back with my legs blown off; I went over there to do a job. But if something unthinkable happens, every man and woman in uniform must know in the backs of their minds and in their hearts that someone is going to look after them and not bail out.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Major.

We now open the floor to anyone who would like to make comments. Both microphones are for everyone.

I would just like to mention to you that we have a new addition to the panel, Mr. David Price.

Could you just identify yourself before beginning your comments?

Chief Warrant Officer Doug Gardner (Canadian Forces Base Suffield): Chairman, members of the panel, my name is Chief Warrant Officer Doug Gardner. I'm the base regimental sergeant-major in Suffield, Alberta. I travelled here today especially to great you and to give you some points that have come from the soldiers of CFB Suffield and from myself. We were prepared to come to see you last year, but I'm glad you're here now.

• 1445

I have read all the speeches that have been given to you by the minister, by the CDS, and a host of other generals who presented their cases for the army, the air force, and the navy. You clearly have a large job to do. I'm sure that as you're travelling around now, having received the big picture from them, you're starting to see the actual network problems that are out here from the individuals, just the ones who have come out today—from Colonel Leslie and of course from Major Bruce Henwood, with whom I have had the pleasure to serve in my regiment.

I have a host of points. I'm not sure any of them are new, but this is our day to speak. I don't think there will be too many questions on them. So I'll just run through them.

The first point is pay. Yes, I'd love a 15% pay raise and I think everybody else would certainly like that. Pay is a problem, and I'm sure pay has been brought up to you in every instance so far when you've been in front of the members of the Canadian Forces. Everybody has their ideas, everybody has their own individual complaints, and because life in the military and promotion and advancement in the military are linked directly to pay, it affects everybody in a different way.

We do expect—and we accept our responsibilities, having volunteered to be in the military—to do the things that we're asked to do. But we just want to be equal.

Second, a little bit more pointed, is rent. A number of things have been tried in the military to alleviate the problems of rent. I have to say that I'm very happy to be in Suffield and not living in Esquimalt in a PMQ.

You may not know that Suffield is classed as a remote base and there are some benefits to that. Our community gets extra funding because of where we live. Suffield is about 60 kilometres from any major built-up area. I can watch my dog run away for three days. It's a great place to live.

However, the rent of that PMQ, which is anywhere from 25 to 30 years old or older, is higher than the rental of a house that may only be 10 or 15 years old in Medicine Hat—if you could get a house in Medicine Hat to rent, but you can't, because the British forces have them all.

So we live in that community and it poses some problems. I won't mention all the good things that are in Suffield, and there is an enormous amount of good things about being in Suffield. But I have a small statement that has come from our G4 group, which has been tasked by the commander to yet again look at PMQ rates and see if we can find a way to lower the cost to the soldiers who live in those houses. I'll read this so I get it right.

The decrease of budgets and resource allocations over the past several years has had a detrimental impact on the quality of life of CF members and their dependants residing on remote bases such as Suffield. I would like to give you one very clear example. Up to the fall of 1995 CFB Suffield provided 11 highway cruisers to transport those people who lived in Medicine Hat, both military and civilian, to work and home again. hat was a free service provided for them to ensure that....

There is a CFAO that allows that to happen, CFAO 20-90. The 11 buses ran continuously throughout the day, because we have a number of shift workers. The community and CFAO 20-90 also gives permission for the military to fund these buses to the members for shopping trips and for entertainment. In the fall of 1995 those buses were cancelled, the service was discontinued, and the assistance provided to members and the employees of the department was changed to a cash allowance. It rounds out to about $120 a month for those people who get it. The change in assistance saved the Department of National Defence $1.5 million per year in wages, vehicle procurement, and maintenance. It also cancelled service available to those people who lived in the married quarters.

• 1450

So the people who come to work from Medicine Hat, both military and civilian, now get $120 a month to come to work. But nobody pays me to drive into Medicine Hat to buy my groceries, because I have nowhere to buy groceries. I have a small CANEX, but nobody in this room would shop at CANEX, not for your groceries anyway.

My question is, are the regulations to be ignored or does the department have the obligation to provide service as outlined and to compensate the CF members and their dependants, who in this case specifically live in a remote classified base?

Number three is our present leave policy. I understand the need to have our leave policy changed. There was huge abuse of our leave policy. People were collecting annual leave, calling it accumulated leave, and when they got out of the military they were on leave for six, eight months, maybe even a year. To me that was definitely a scam. Anybody in this room who has 15 years or more is probably sitting with 40 plus annual days accumulated. For example, as an MWO that's $280 per day you're going to get.

That leave policy has changed, and I'm sure throughout your work on this study you will become familiar, if you're not already, with the ins and outs of the present leave policy. However, it is very difficult to administer. I now have to send soldiers on leave in January who don't want to go on leave when their children are in school and it is minus 45 outside. They're not interested in going on leave at that particular point, and they can't afford to go to Florida because they're not receiving equal pay for equal work.

We have military shift workers in Suffield who work three days on and three days off. It sounds like a pretty good deal, but it's not, because they're actually at work for the full 24 hours of those three days. They work long hours in the summertime in support of the British army. They look after the fires, and there are lots of fires in the training area during the summertime. They are virtually unable to go on two weeks' leave. Maybe there are not enough of them. We're not going to get any more of them. We have the establishment for the numbers of people; that's not going to change. So they don't get to go on leave between the first part of April, the middle of March...until the middle of November. They will get their days off, and they might be able to sneak a week in here or there to go hunting and fishing, but they're not getting the full block leave. They certainly don't get off for the summer holidays when their children are out of school.

They're shift workers. They're doing one of the most important jobs in Suffield: fighting fires. When a fire spreads out of the training area, you have to deal with the farmers.

Number four, RRSPs. This is a quick one. The general understanding is, and government advice recommends, that each person should put $5,000 into an RRSP a year. I'm sure we've all gone through financial planning days. People come from various financial companies—Templeton—and tell us all these things that we have to put away for our future. I don't know. They are right; we do have to do things like that. Everybody should be putting away, into their own personal RRSP, as much as they can. But life is not a dress rehearsal. I can't save all my money. I've got to spend some of it to live.

• 1455

Five, education of our children. Other armies in the world pay specific attention to this. The British army is the one I'll use as an example. They have a commitment to their soldiers to say, we recognize that if we keep moving you around and your children go to various schools, we limit and cause them to have a disadvantage in education, which causes them to have less important or less viable jobs in the future when they enter the workforce. This is because their education is disjointed. It goes from one school board to the next, every three, four or five years, whatever the posting is. So they have schooling packages.

I'm not saying I'm an advocate of boarding schools. I don't think many people in our society are. But they pay to have their children remain in boarding schools, and the government pays for that so that their children have the best possible chance, equal to that of the civilian population, to get a quality education.

I'm sorry. I'm presenting a problem, but in this one I don't have a solution.

Six, equipment. I'm not going to talk about our guns and all those things we have as soldiers, but I have a specific example.

In Suffield our range maintenance regrades and regrades the roads of Suffield, which are about a thousand kilometres, if not more, many times a year. As the tanks roll over them and destroy them, they regrade and fix thousands of kilometres of road every year. But they're given the wrong equipment to do it. They ask for the right equipment, but they get the one we have or the one that's in the lot somewhere, in the government sale lot, or wherever it is.

We end up with machinery and equipment to do jobs that don't meet the requirements. But because they're already purchased, or that's all we could afford, I have soldiers out in the ranges grading roads in equipment that is inferior for the job that's being handled, which causes me to have more maintenance problems, which affects my budget to maintain those pieces of equipment that I didn't ask for in the first place.

I use that as an example because I think it's fairly relevant to a lot of the equipment we get.

I'd like to make one comment on the FRC in regard to Major Henwood's presentation.

The FRC is a federally funded agency—and I can be corrected on this, please—that doesn't come out of DND money. The FRC is a separate bill. When you have an organization on a base that works for its own masters in some other location and tries to help the military, if the military doesn't have a plan or some organization to help a situation like Major Henwood's, well, the FRC won't be able to do anything because they have nothing to go to. They have nobody to ask. In most cases they're there doing a fairly good job for the community assistance that they ask for. But, good heavens, in this case the military didn't even a plan to look after a seriously injured soldier, so why would the FRC?

Enough's been said about SISIP. We'll talk about the medical and dental plan.

I'm going to ask for a hands-up here. Those people with children in the room, did you know that your children now can go for dental care only every nine months as opposed to every six months? Did you know that before you sent your kids for their six-month check-up and got caught and had to pay for it? I had to do that, because it wasn't well advertised.

This goes to what Colonel Leslie talked about earlier. Our dental and medical plans change all the time, but we tend not to get the information at the right time or well enough, or we misunderstand it because we're deployed somewhere.

My pay statement came in and it had a little thing that explained the changes to the dental plan. Most of the people I know who got this got that pay statement late because they were in the field and it didn't get delivered out to the field and they didn't see it. It came in the pay statement. It fell out; it fell on the floor. That's the member's fault; he didn't pay attention to it. But the point is it changed and nobody asked me.

• 1500

In a world where everybody is trying to determine the right way to have our universal medical care and corporations spend a lot of time talking to their people about what they want from medical care, we never get asked.

This is yet again an example of the social test bed that the military has to be, and it is in regard to medical as well.

There are changes in the medical plan. Our deductible went from $40 to $100. Nobody asked me if I thought that was a good idea. I don't think that was a good idea. By the way, that happened and then I got my three pay adjustments. I'm still out $40.

That's all I have, sir. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Do the members have any questions or comments?

Regarding the Family Resources Centre, it's true that they get their financing from Ottawa, but would you find it better if it was controlled by the base commander?

Chief Warrant Officer Gardner: No, sir.

The Chairman: The funding?

Chief Warrant Officer Gardner: The funding. No, sir, and the only reason I say that is not that he wouldn't be able to do it efficiently. It is that if he got the control, it would probably be cut.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Corporal W.L. Leonard (Individual Presentation): My name is Corporal Leonard, with Headquarters and Signals Squadron in 1CBMG.

The chief warrant officer earlier touched on a point about PMQ housing rates, and that was the only issue I wanted to bring up. I wonder if you would be interested in taking down some figures, rent and what not, from across Canada, the differences of them. I did some checking around. Some of my figures aren't totally accurate. I got them from CFHA housing at different bases that I called up today. So the figures are fairly accurate, but there are differences, of course, depending on the type of PMQ you're in.

I want to use specifics, mostly for the master corporal rank on down, as it pertains to most of us, because we are generally close to the same pay scale, with the exception of the privates.

I, as a corporal, fourth incentive, make $3,058 gross pay per month. After my pay deductions of $936.15, I am left with $2,138 to survive, with my family of two children, which is not bad. That cash isn't totally bad, but it depends on where you live, and this is what I can't understand.

A four-bedroom PMQ, approximately 1,100 square feet, in CFB Gagetown, with an insulation rebate, is $427, with utilities. That's the charge. That leaves me $855.90 per pay, to continue surviving, buying food, etc.

Moving on to Shiloh, Manitoba, the same PMQ, slightly larger, perhaps with a garage and definitely in better condition, costs $350, up to $460. It varies in that base depending on the condition of the PMQ, I was told today by the CFHA inquiries counter in Shiloh, Manitoba. So I'll just say that the lowest rent is $350. It leaves me $894 per pay.

If we look further across Canada, out to Edmonton, the same PMQ, same size, is $521.45. I want to remind you that my gross pay of $3,058 hasn't increased as I've been posted further west.

• 1505

Within just the base benefit alone, there's a discrepancy between Griesbach, the location we're in now, and Lancaster Park, the newer part of the base. The same PMQ in Lancaster Park will save me $67.04 per month. I have to pay $67 more to live here in Griesbach. So you ask why I don't live in Lancaster Park. Well, maybe there wasn't a PMQ available there. I don't know; I'm in Griesbach.

If you keep on going west to Esquimalt, the same PMQ is $712. It costs the soldier $267.14 more per month to live there. So I hope you don't get posted out there unless you get a pay raise to cover that difference.

The problem I have is the erosion of my spending dollars to do my duty anywhere in this country. In my opinion, my cost of living in a military house should be the same no matter where I am in Canada.

So when I inquired further about it I was told, “Well, son, your rates of rent are determined by Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation”. I think that's a civilian agency; I don't think it's military. I'm not sure. They base their rents on the local economies, so basically whatever civvy Joe Bloggins downtown is paying for his flat in Edmonton might be more than down in Oromocto, New Brunswick; therefore your rent will be more if you live here in Edmonton.

I don't care what the civvy guy is paying downtown. I'm a soldier. I signed on the line and I know I can be transferred every four to six years. So why, to serve my country out west rather than out east...? I'm on federal property here and I'm doing a federal job. Why should I be compared to a civilian downtown when my pay doesn't change, yet my rent for the military house increases? I just can't understand why that is controlled by CMHC. I think it's a military issue and it should be dealt with within the military.

That's all I have.

The Chairman: I think a few of the members have questions. Mr. Pratt, do you have a question for the gentleman?

Mr. David Pratt: Corporal Leonard, you mentioned the problem but you didn't suggest any solution.

There's been a whole range of suggestions, but one of the things we've heard to correct the situation is the idea of perhaps a lump-sum equalized payment across the country that would be non-taxable, so that a corporal, whether in Gagetown or Esquimalt, is essentially spending the same amount of money for accommodation. Do you think that would be appropriate or do you have any other suggestions?

Corporal W.L. Leonard: You would have to look at some other stuff too. It's not just an issue for the master corporals, corporals and junior ranks, etc. How do you think it feels...? I was told today by CFHA that the base commander in Shilo pays $470 for a 1,882-square-foot PMQ with garage, bells and whistles. I make less than half of his salary and I am paying more. It just doesn't make sense.

I don't know what you can come up with, but feel free to ask some more questions. I don't know. Throw it to the floor.

A voice: There are some solutions for this. I served with the U.S. forces at Fort Knox, and without going too deeply into it, they have a completely reversed system. Before the soldier gets his pay, these deductions come off. So before the pay is actually taxed, whatever his lump sum is—sorry, $3,500 a month—the cost of shelter is taken out, and everybody pays the same amount. So in their terms, they live in their quarters for free, because they don't see that. At the end of the day, once all these deductions come out—the CPP, the UIC, all this stuff—then what he takes home is taxed, which gives him a good benefit. There's more money in his pocket.

• 1510

Now, that happens to his pay as long as he lives in quarters. If he decides “Well, I've saved enough money because I'm getting paid enough and I'm going to buy my house”, well, his pay just went up by $380, in some cases, because he gets that money back now in his pay.

Because they don't see all the background work...I had American soldiers tell me they get paid not to live in quarters, because they don't understand what's happening to their pay. I have to tell you they're very happy with the system, because in most cases that extra money that shows up in their pay.... They go to get their VA loan for 30 years and the rate will never change. That money they're now getting paid to live out of quarters pays for their house. What a great deal!

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Microphone two, please.

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, I'm here to talk about what I think is a touchy issue. I know it's a touchy issue. It probably hasn't been raised before.

I've certainly taken votes among the people around me at work, on the junior NCO side and senior NCOs and officers, and I know I have a lot of support. However, I also know there are people up there in the senior ranks who are not going to be pleased with what I'm about to suggest, and that has to do with mess dinners.

Mess dinners can bring up a whole lot of questions. I'm going to leave the least important ones out and talk about the one that's most important to me, and that has to do with the corporals and privates who have to serve us wine, dinner, cheese, whatever else is on the menu for that day. I think it's both degrading and demeaning to the person. These people here are being paid to soldier. They're over there in Bosnia, they're facing a rifle shoved in their faces, they've got people yelling, throwing things at them, whatever. When that's all finished, what happens? They come home and they pour me a glass of wine at my table.

That's almost an embarrassing thing to say, because I don't think a lot of civilians know that this sort of stuff goes on. I could take a vote here. I'm not going to; I think it's something that needs to be looked at Canadian Forces-wide. I know I'm not alone on this. But I know right now that probably a lot of senior people are looking at me saying, “What was his name again?” But I'll deal with that. I'm getting close to retiring anyway.

Again, I just want to say that I was a corporal and a private at one time and I had to go through this thing, and believe me, I was not happy at all to do it. It is demeaning and it is degrading, and I don't care what anybody else thinks about it.

What is my solution to it? Again, I'd be more than willing, if I have to attend these mess dinners, to pay a little extra money to have maybe a catering service come in. I don't know. As the new sergeant in the crowd who just came in, I'm more than willing to pour the wine myself for these dinners. Call it a joe job, whatever. I know there are a lot of people here right now who would stand up and say, “Why don't you just get rid of the mess dinner?”

Voices: Hear, hear!

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: However, that's not my suggestion. I'm just here right now to protect the corporals and the privates.

Before I come back to that, if anyone has a question, I want to make one comment first on the pay side.

I didn't join the military for money. I knew that. I knew what the pay was like, obviously, before I came in. I joined for other reasons. I enjoy the military very much. I love it. I wouldn't get out unless I had to. But unfortunately, my wife makes much more money than I do, even though she's just started her new job. It's more secure and she has a better future; therefore, we have to put the emphasis on her career. So mine has taken the back seat. I made that decision. I'm prepared to get out at any time, for instance, if I have to move. That's the state of pay in the Canadian Forces right now.

On the SISIP side, I don't know how many times I've been told stories about people who ask, “Am I covered when I go home from work after four o'clock?” “No, you're not”. That's what I was told when I first joined the military, so that's what I've taught my guys. When all these new people come in, I tell them, “Get out there and get that extra insurance like I did, because you ain't covered as soon as you leave work at four o'clock”.

• 1515

I did that for a few years. I came here and I've just had another briefing from another SISIP representative, who said you're covered when you go home, after four o'clock. I asked how long that has been so. He said that's the way it's always been.

Now this major stands up here and gives us his story. Now I don't know what to tell my wife when I go home. Are you covered for this amount? Are you going to get this if I die? What happens if I lose my legs? I don't know any more.

I'm not going to tell my guys any more either, because I don't know and I can't trust the SISIP representative any more.

That's all I have to say, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: I didn't catch your rank.

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: It's Sergeant Vanschepdael, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is this business with the corporals and privates serving a voluntary thing, or is it a custom? Is there pay involved in it?

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: That's an excellent question actually, because it goes in a lot of different directions depending on who your boss is and what base you're at.

Messengers of course are based on tradition and there can be some good points behind them, but the business of using corporals and privates to serve you is just something...that's the way it's always been done.

Is it done on a volunteer basis? Yes and no. There are ways of getting volunteers. One is by offering days off. Sometimes you get one, sometimes you get two days off. If you have a good boss, that's what happens. When I say days off, I mean you wake up in the morning when you want to and you don't show up at work. That means you are paying for me to sit at home and have a couple days off because I served wine the other night to my fellow soldiers. Generally that's how they'll get their volunteers.

Another way is by the soldiers getting rid of extra duties that they've accumulated. They've done something wrong in the military and instead of being punished by doing the 24-hour duties that we have or doing some extra drill, they will be given the chance to serve at the mess dinner. Again, they volunteer to do that rather than pound pavement. That's another way.

I've seen it in the military—it was there when I first got in—where they said, “Okay, mess dinner. Who wants to serve there?”. Of course no one would put up their hand. “Okay, you, you and you are going to serve there and you'll get the next day off”. Or maybe you won't get the next day off, depending again on the unit, the boss. It changes everywhere you go.

I hope that answers your question. Volunteer? It all depends.

Mr. Art Hanger: How do the corporals and privates take it? I guess all kinds of attitudes can be displayed. A resistant one could be one thing. An enjoyable attitude could be another. At the same time, is it considered to be a demeaning affair for most, or is that how it's really judged?

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: You can probably hear just about every answer.

I've become concerned not only because I myself found it very demeaning. I'm talking from experience, and I'm talking also from the people that I've been responsible for throughout my career who have approached me and said, “I don't want to do this”, or others that have simply said no and backed away, just walked away, and the particular senior NCO simply had to choose someone else because he knew he couldn't force them. At least that's what he thought.

In general I find that most people find it demeaning. There are people that don't mind at all doing it, simply because they love those days off. It's a chance to get away from work and have a long week-end.

I think you're going to find every response, but I know that you're going to find the majority of responses are going to be that it is demeaning. Again I'm talking from experience. I was a corporal and a private. I would rather be at work, doing whatever my job happens to be, than sitting there at eight o'clock pouring wine for someone else. You know what that makes you feel like. It's not my job; I'm not being paid to do it. Some people argue against that, but there I am at eight o'clock pouring you a glass of wine. How does that make me feel?

• 1520

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: On the subject of morale, one of the things we've heard in some of the spots we've been in is that morale overall in the Canadian Forces is low—the people are demoralized for a lot of reasons, whether pay or housing or lack of proper equipment—but unit morale is high. I don't know how you would define high, but that doesn't seem to be suffering by the problems we're in right now, by the situation we face right now. I don't know which battalion you're with, but what is your observation about the unit morale of let's say the Lord Strathcona's Horse or the Princess Patricia's?

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: Sir, right now I'm with headquarters in the signals squadron here. I have served with a lot of units. I'll name some, because I have a lot of experience. With my trade as a radio operator, I can go just about anywhere. I've served with helicopter squadrons in Germany. I've served almost eight years with infantry units, different ones: the Second Battalion in Winnipeg and the Canadian Airborne Regiment—I've done six years there. I've been to a lot of places. I've seen a lot of things. The issue of morale has come up many times for a lot or reasons.

I'll tell you right now that morale is not something that is particular to each unit. I think we all face the same problems every day. Yet in the papers you'll hear the morale is low at this time, and you're hearing the unit morale is high yet the individual morale are low. My experience personally is the morale has never been as bad as what people say; but this is my own opinion.

If I look at the units I've served with, at the time when the Canadian Airborne was being disbanded there was a bad time for that unit. I would say at least a quarter to half the people who are in here right now served with that unit at one time, including during its disbandment, and I'll tell you right now they are not low in morale. In fact, they are out there fighting. They have already served on other tours and done their normal outstanding jobs.

In my unit right now morale is high, despite some of the complaints we might have about how things are going. I personally think soldiers are really good at battling through the bull. The morale tends to stay high because the soldiers overall are good people. But we keep getting slugged from every direction, whether it's the media slugging us, whether it's the politicians grappling at our wallets, whether it's our bosses who right at that time happen to be of poor quality, or whatever. But we still manage to get through it.

My opinion overall is that morale has never been as bad as people say, simply because we have a lot of people who fight through the dumb stuff that comes along.

The Chairman: Mrs. Longfield.

Ms. Judi Longfield: Sergeant, we've been hearing a lot about ASD as we've been travelling around. I'm curious what your concerns are in your unit on ASD.

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: First you have to tell me what ASD means.

Ms. Judi Longfield: Alternate service delivery.

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: Alternate service delivery. Is that—

Ms. Judi Longfield: Privatization.

Sergeant M.J. Vanschepdael: Someone would have to explain that better. I think I know what you mean, but I had better check.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I have someone who has volunteered.

Sergeant F.J. Thibaudeau (Individual Presentation): Sergeant Thibaudeau. I'm with the garrison fire department. I'm on the platoon team for the six-man rescue team.

Our department has been surveyed to death. These guys up here are probably some of the most highly qualified people for fire departments, and you guys are going to lose them because of money and number counting; bean-counting. It's crap, I'll tell you right now.

One of your constituents up there is from North Bay, Ontario. He knows what I'm talking about, because I was there when they closed it. He lost one of the best fire departments in Canada.

This fire department placed seventh in the firefighters' world games—seventh, from here, this garrison. Now we are up on the ASD chopping block. It's unfair.

• 1525

Fact: the people in the city of Edmonton get an eight-minute response time to any emergency. It's expected. The city conducted trials here, and the fastest time they could get here was nine to fifteen. Our garrison fire department was four to eight.

If the member who had a PMQ fire last year is here, he'll tell you what kind of job we did.

Garrison Edmonton has been removed from medical response. Our ambulance and our medics were taken away and it was contracted downtown. I was at a call as a platoon chief with that crew, with a member who went down, not military, civilian. The civilian response time was 25 minutes. He was a paraplegic and he had a seizure and he was on medication. That's fact.

As a platoon chief I am responsible for my crew. I am also responsible for you people when you leave to do your thing in Quebec, or to do your thing in Bosnia, to help your family out. If you call that fire hall today for anything and have your spouses mention that your husband is in such-and-such a place and you need some help, I will guarantee you that we will get the people there for you, whether it's the duty officer or anybody else.

ASD is killing the Canadian Armed Forces. ASD has taken the jobs from every supply technician and every financial clerk and thrown them to civilians, and they're making money off us. That's a fact, and it upsets me.

I've seen it in North Bay. The city of North Bay got a $1.5-million truck for $1—$1.2 million of gear and equipment from a firehall when they closed it down and we walked out. That's a fact. And one military firefighter was hired.

I carry 13 NFPA qualifications out of Oklahoma City. My crew carry anywhere from a minimum of five to seven. Two of my members, out of six on my crew, work for the Namao volunteer fire department. It is an excellent department, but they're volunteers. I'm professional. That's my job.

The city of Edmonton firefighters make $34,000 to $54,000 a year. I can guarantee you boys and ladies that I don't, but I love my job. I'd do my job seven days a week, and so would they.

You wanted the issue on morale. It's pretty hard for me to say to my man who is an 18-year-old master corporal, or to the individual, “You should be a sergeant, but I can't give it to you because we're gone”. Thirty-five jobs are gone, and the army isn't getting them because it's bean-counting. The 35 positions are gone; the wage envelope is dropped. The Canadian Forces reduction plan numbers are met, and that's how they're doing it.

In your buildings, look at your cleaners. I'm not putting anything against them, but I know that when we did it, it was a better job. Wasn't it? Am I telling the truth? That's your problem.

Ms. Judi Longfield: I have heard similar responses in many areas and no one has addressed it as eloquently as you. I thank you. I have my answer.

The Chairman: Do we have any more questions for the sergeant? No?

Thank you very much, sir.

Private C. Cruickshank (Individual Presentation): I'm Private Cruickshank. I belong to One Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group headquarters.

• 1530

My question is on the pay increments we get yearly, 1.3% and so forth. It is supposedly to catch us up to the civilian service. Correct?

The Chairman: I guess it tries to catch up, yes.

Private C. Cruickshank: At least once a year, maybe once every couple of years, the civilian service gets a cost of living raise. With these increments it won't work, because we catch up, but it puts it back to where we started because they get that raise. The only way I can see this being fixed is to catch us up with one lump sum. Then we're finally there.

The Chairman: Private, it is a statement we hear over and over again, and it is something we will seriously be looking at, to try to catch up to the civilian population.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Private, much of the public service—and I know there has been talk of somehow connecting military pay scales to the public service—has been frozen for many years, along with the RCMP, prison guards, and so on. They are just starting to loosen up the strings. They've been getting very small increments. They are unjustified as far as the size is concerned, but the military are far behind any of those entities—a long way behind.

This committee is going to sit here and draft a report, and we're going to put certain recommendations in it. Every one of us can sit on this committee and agree that certain things have to happen in the military. As an opposition member, I think I have a greater responsibility in delivering that message to put pressure on the government to make some substantial changes to what they have put there already. That's going to be a task and a half.

We're going to put this report together and deliver it to the minister's desk. He's going to take it in to the cabinet and they're all going to look at those recommendations and find out how much they are going to cost.

As much as we may feel this is what should happen, our chore is to deliver the message we're hearing from everyone here when we've finished our tour and impact on the government as much as possible. As opposition members, Mr. Price, myself, and the others are going to have to use every trick in the book. Treasury Board has to loosen up some of their rules. The finance minister is going to have to loosen up the purse strings and build that into the budget, which is coming down quickly, or nothing will happen.

I'm going to do my part and I know the people serving on this committee are going to do what they can on the government side. It's going to take a unified effort.

The only thing that I see that is going to make the biggest difference is public opinion. It starts putting pressure on government to right some wrongs that have been around for a long time when it comes to the military. It's been disgusting.

That's the situation here. We may all agree and say the 1.3% and 1.6% increases are inadequate. It is inadequate; it's a slap in the face, and we recognize that something substantial has to be done. We will try to do that. As an opposition member, I will do my best.

Private C. Cruickshank: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1535

Master Warrant Officer R.W. McNaughton (Individual Presentation): SCONDVA committee, thank you for being here today. My name is Master Warrant Officer McNaughton. I am part of the Edmonton garrison, in the operations and training cell.

I think one of the main reasons why I am up here is to add to the major's speech on the medical and veterans' affairs. In 1992 I fractured my spine while on a training exercise with the 1st Patricia's in Calgary. It took me almost seven years to get the veterans affairs department of Canada to decide that I had had an accident, and it took me almost seven years of persistent calling and persistent sending of mail to them for them even to think I was a Canadian citizen. One of the main things I found with all this is that after I had won my medical pension, which I will receive when I retire—that's the date when they will give me the medical pension—they told me that because I was not serving overseas, the pension was retroactive only from the day I got out.

Well, I say to this committee—and I think everyone on this floor here will say the same thing—when we joined the military, we signed on the dotted line to defend our country, whether we are training in Canada or we are overseas; and I do have three UN tours and four years in Germany and many other postings under my belt. I am training for war. If that means I don't have a UN medal when I have a medical problem, then I would see fit to tell this committee and the government of this land they had better open their archaic books and look at what they are doing.

If we're talking about morale, Mr. Pratt, then I think our morale problems are that no one is listening to us. In my 26 years, this is the first time I have seen a committee, by the way. I'm not trying to be facetious, but it's nice to see people such as Mr. Hanger, who is a person from the opposition, speaking from the heart and not from what Mr. Clinton is saying in the States about his affairs.

Let me add a few things I have written down from the young sergeant and a few others since I've been standing here.

We mentioned morale. Well, if anyone thinks ASD is helping morale, I'm here to tell you it's not. I just spent 14 months in central Canada, working for the reserve force of Canada, which is the total force that goes to war with me, just as well as all these individuals, and it destroyed their morale. Why? We're trying to save money, and if that's what the force is all about, saving money, ladies and gentlemen, then I have wasted 26 years of my life.

ASD, alternate service delivery, is going to burden the function of people such as Colonel Leslie and the general over there in doing their jobs. Politically it's very unsound for these gentlemen to say that in public. Gentlemen, my pension is paid for. I can say it.

Let's touch on the policy of leave. For all my years in the military as a leader—and since I started wearing the rank of master corporal I've been been trained to be a leader—how can I tell my subordinates that I am forcing them on vacation because some other individuals abused the leave system of the Canadian Forces and not think I am hurting their morale? Think about it, gentlemen. If you were a person running a business and you forced your personnel on vacation—forced them on vacation—do you think they would work for you? They wouldn't.

Pay—I don't know about anyone else here, but I know the chief talked about having money taken off his pay scale without his knowing about it. How about the Canada Pension Plan we are paying into, ladies and gentlemen? A great plan. I just lost $700 of my money to the Canada Pension Plan. It almost doubled. My pay raise after the Canada Pension Plan and everything were finished was $41. Not a bad pay raise for a master warrant officer who can be sent anywhere in the world. If we're talking about equity, maybe someone should talk to us when they start taking all our money away.

• 1540

Let's talk about FRP and the Public Service of Canada. Here's an example. When employees of the Public Service of Canada use their vehicles, they get high rate of mileage. When we use ours, we get low rate. Is there a problem with that? Why is that happening? When the Public Service of Canada is given a buy-out package, they get 12 months of pay. What did we get the last time we had an FRP? Nine months. Are we different? I don't think we are. We're all taxpayers. We all work in the same country.

I think this is more from the personal side, after watching the army for 26 years and making it my life. You tend to get more personal feelings out of it. I apologize if I sound a bit cynical, but after watching a system that is trying to destroy us with ASD, trying to give us promises for pay and equity, I don't see anything happening.

I read a lot of papers that tell me things are going to happen, and I know this committee is going to take its report forward and give it to the government.

I can only hope that we will stop worrying about money and start paying the military for the services they are giving, not only to the people in this country but also to the rest of the world.

I thank you for all your ears, and I thank all my serving members for listening to me complain not only for myself but also for them.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Any questions or comments? Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Master Warrant Officer, I'm curious about this medical issue again. You fractured your spine approximately seven years ago?

Master Warrant Officer McNaughton: Yes, sir, in 1992.

The problem we have in the military is that not very many people have ever informed us of where we can go once we have medical problems. The medical system within the military is probably next to none. I have served overseas where I have been dealt with by other medical units in the world, and ours will bend over backwards to take care of us at any given time.

The problem we have is that when we step out of our medical peoples' profession and we step into Veterans Affairs and the bureaucracy, as the major said just about an hour ago, the bureaucracy kills us. Unless you're persistent and arrogant and outspoken, like most of us soldiers are trained to be to get what we want to do our jobs, you'll get nowhere.

I phoned Veterans Affairs 27 times in seven years, and all I got was a clerk telling me to wait my turn. Of course I moved to three different postings in that time, and I sent them memos upon memos.

An interesting fact is that when I got posted to Toronto, I phoned Veterans Affairs to see if they were going to deal with me in Toronto. Do you know what they told me, sir? “Your file was started in Edmonton. You have to go back there”. If you think that doesn't frustrate us, there's something wrong here.

So I went to the gentleman in charge of the unit in Edmonton to get my file shipped to Toronto—but, by the way, they weren't going to do it, because it's all numbers and percentages and ASDs and everything else.

We're so damn worried—excuse my language—about the numbers and the money these days that we're forgetting about human feelings. And then we wonder why there's a morale problem.

So I did get my pensions, and I will get them when I retire, sir, both of them, for my lower and middle back. The problem I can't digest is why I get it when I retire, when I have a master warrant officer that's in the service with me, that has served the same amount of time in the service as I have, that has a pension or a VA card right now because he was in Somalia and he hurt his back. Because I was on a training exercise in British Columbia and fell off a mountain and broke my back, I don't get my pension until I get out. I have the same pains, I have the same problems, I have the same paperwork, but because I didn't get a medal for mine and he got one for his, he gets his pension right away. It seems to be a little bit unjust.

I am in the process of writing a letter to Veterans Affairs, and it isn't going to be nice.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, sir. Send me a copy of the letter.

Master Warrant Officer McNaughton: You've got it, sir. I'll get your address.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have a card.

Corporal K. Ledrew (Individual Presentation): My name is Corporal Ledrew, and I'm with 1 ASG Transport.

My main concern today is the single parents in the military or husband and wife teams in the military. For example, when we go away on TD—it's part of our job, I know, we sign on the line and everything—sometimes we have to send our children either home to our parents or to other locations to be properly looked after, to make sure they're okay. There's nothing on the books to help us out with costs, with LTA.

• 1545

For example, I'm a single parent with a little guy. I had to go away to Borden on TD for three months. I took my little guy home to Newfoundland. I said, “Well, I'll claim LTA when I get back”. I put the memo in and it came back telling me to look up the definition of home. I took out the book and looked up the definition of home. It states it is the place you were last moved by public expense. Obviously I did not get the money I thought I was going to get. My kid was sent to Newfoundland. Out of a $3,800 claim I was given to be on the road for three months, $3,500 went to plane tickets. I did get some help from my unit. They gave me a loan and I bought the tickets.

I feel there should be something done to help parents or single parents in the military when they go away on TD. LTA could be adjusted to whoever is minding their children at the time they're sent away.

That's all I have to say.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Master Corporal Karl Plesz (Individual Presentation): I'm Master Corporal Karl Plesz. I serve with headquarters in Signal Squadron here in Edmonton.

I have a few points. I'll try to be brief.

First of all, let me say that I'm very appreciative that this committee and you, Mr. Chairman, took the time to come and see us. As has been said a couple of times so far today, we don't really get an opportunity to voice our concerns like this to a captive audience very often. As military people we're expected to do as we're told and complain later, usually to deaf ears.

I have a few important points that I think need to be stressed, the first one being that the military, while it has made strides under budget constraints, continues to need to adapt to changes in society and family structure.

I agree wholeheartedly with many of the things Colonel Leslie said earlier about pay, but I'd also like to stress that while some privates who join the forces are single, because of changes that have actually been made in the forces there are many privates joining with families and children already, and they cannot survive on a private's pay. We have examples of that in our unit alone. They're working four jobs just to make ends meet.

In terms of other important factors to do with family structure, many of the policies that exist in the military today, although they have been modified somewhat, are based on family structures that existed 20 to 30 years ago, where one wage earner could support an entire family comfortably. I don't think there are many people in this room—maybe there are a few who have succeeded—or in the forces who can say that's still true today. As a result, spouses who are not in the military are working or trying to get employment in less mobile occupations. Military spouses are less and less in transferable occupations, such as nurses, clerks, waitresses, and professionals that cannot be moved. Once they do lose their job and have to follow the military family to another location, it's often years before they can be re-employed in their trade, if at all.

In terms of our pay and benefits, we're constantly being compared to the RCMP and the civil service. I don't know how we compare to them, with the exception of the RCMP, who do have a dangerous job and do have as many demands as we do in certain respects. I do not see how we are compared with the civil service. Why are we the last to see our benefits negotiated when we probably have the toughest job?

• 1550

About the move to Edmonton, which is a very controversial issue, even though it's not very much talked about in the open, while the public—and this is only my opinion—has been swindled into believing it was a great idea, I think the people in this room understand what the real costs are. It's an understanding also that the base in Calgary is closed, when in fact it is not. Currently there are regular force members serving in Calgary. I'm here to tell you, after having talked to them over Christmas, because my family is still there, that they feel abandoned.

About support services, I don't have much experience with military family resource centres. I've never gone to them for support, so I can't rate them. But about other services, such as CANEX, I'm sure if you talk to more individuals here today they will tell you that considering we have just increased the size of this garrison tremendously by moving all the brigade units here, it seems CANEX is going in the opposite direction and wants to cut services. This is unfathomable.

I would also like to ask you if anyone has mentioned that with the few pay raises we have had, the incremental pay raises, for every time we do get an incremental rate, something else we have to pay, such as PMQ rents for those of us who live on base, go up shortly thereafter, almost nullifying the raise.

I would also wonder what the results of a survey of the general forces personnel would.... How many people who have say 16 or more years in the forces and have signed up for a 20-year contract are hanging on just because they want their pension, not because they still enjoy their work or because they feel they are getting paid enough?

About alternate service delivery, again, this is just my opinion, but it's a very sensible one. I think the answer to alternate service delivery is simple. It can't work for the military, because the people who provided the services before they were contracted out to civilians are expected to perform those services anywhere at any time. This cannot be expected to be done by civilian equivalents.

About injuries to personnel in the military, it's a tragedy that people who suffer severe injuries such as those we saw today don't get compensated and feel they are abandoned by the government and by the military, but are you aware that even minor injuries, now that the forces have a very strict guideline.... I forget exactly what it's called. Everyone now in the forces, regardless of their job, has to meet a certain requirement physically in order to be employed by the military. If even a minor injury makes you no longer able to meet that requirement, you are under serious risk of being released with no compensation by the military.

The last point I would like to bring up, one I know has been a sore point with most military members, is that we all pay employment insurance premiums, but we can never collect them.

That's all I have.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments from the members?

I have a quick one on CANEX. You mentioned they were going to cut services, or they have cut services now. Could you elaborate on that, please?

Master Corporal Karl Plesz: I don't have all the facts, or at least the current facts, but we were given the impression through our information as it's disseminated in the military that CANEX isn't making enough money, so they have decided to close various parts of their services or to reduce hours or to try to find more creative ways to attract us to them, because they are just not making the kind of money they thought they were going to make off so many people living in the garrison.

• 1555

I believe they were considering closing the liquor store, which is no great loss for me, but I'm sure.... It's the principle of providing services to military families in the military community. Again, it all boils down to money.

The Chairman: What kinds of savings could you look at if you were to shop at CANEX as opposed to...?

Master Corporal Karl Plesz: CANEX is not there to save us money. It's there as a convenience so that we don't have to drive five kilometres to buy a loaf of bread and a quart of milk. We only have to go around the corner—for those who live on the base. There is no savings in doing your purchases at CANEX.

The Chairman: The prices are the same?

Master Corporal Karl Plesz: They are the same or more, and in most cases more.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Master Corporal Karl Plesz: You're welcome.

Corporal T.D. Scherger (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. My name is Corporal Scherger. I'm a reservist on call-up with 1-Sigs. I'm up from Calgary. There's some question about reservists when they get called out to duty, about legislation so they can keep their jobs. Is that in the works? Has that been squashed, or what's the deal with that?

The past spring I was working at a truck repair shop. I'm a first-year heavy duty mechanic in civvy life. I asked my boss if I could go on a course with the military. Sure enough, I could go, but I lost my job. In the U.S., if the reservists get called up, they keep their jobs, they're secure; but up here in Canada we don't. I am wondering what's going on with that.

Mr. John Richardson: I don't have the full details on it, but there is a team of businessmen going across the country signing up businesses to support the reserves by giving them time off for annual summer manoeuvres, summer courses, or even in the winter to take regular force courses. To date, 600 businesses across Canada have signed on to that, many of them national businesses.

But I don't think we'll ever get everyone to sign on. Some of them rely on one, two or three people, and if they lose a third of their workforce it puts their business in jeopardy, because generally there's some skill involved.

That's all I know about it to date. At the moment, business people have asked to see if they can sign up as many employers as possible across Canada on a volunteer basis to support it. We have not brought legislation forward to comply with their request and its consequences. We'll be looking to see how far they go in the sign-up of businesses to support the reserves.

Thank you.

Corporal T.D. Scherger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Microphone number one.

Captain C. Phaneuf (Individual Presentation): Good day. I am Captain Phaneuf. I am a social work officer.

For many years now, especially after the Gulf War, we've heard deployment, deployment, deployment, and so many people have been deployed three or four times. I'm not counting any more. But at the same time, throughout military papers, base newspapers, personnel newsletters, a big buzzword is around, and that is “family.”

Family is important. We care for the family. We have the family resource centres to take care of the family. Units are making wonderful works with their rear parties for the families. We encourage families in the forces. Communities and schools and all sorts of things are there for the family.

But it's been recognized that military needs and family needs don't always go hand in hand. Actually, most of the time they go contrary to one another.

In my experience in the last five years as a social worker, I've seen situations where people were asking, “Just for this one time, can I be excluded from this deployment? I've got no reasons, I just want to be home for this one time.” There's no mechanism whatsoever for this soldier to ask his commanding officer, “Can I stay home this one time? That's all I'm asking.”

• 1600

What I'm proposing today is to have some kind of a program. I'll use an example, a number of 10%. If it was possible for a soldier, during whatever time he or she spends in the forces, to be able to decide 10% of the time where he or she wants to be, then that means that over a career of twenty years this member can decide for a total of two years, “I'm not going anywhere. I'm staying home. For this one deployment, I can skip; that six months out of these twenty years, I'm deciding where I want to be.” I'm using 10% as a number. It's going to be up to the commanders and the higher-ups to decide what this percentage would be.

For someone, a single member who wants just to finish one last university course to get his degree: “Can I stay home for three months to finish this course?” For the single parent who's supposed to be going on TD or something: “Can I skip this one TD and stay with my family until I find some child care resource locally or drive to mom's or whatever? For this one time can I have the opportunity to stay behind?” For dual service couples—they're both scheduled to be deployed now—can one ask to stay home for just one time? Or even for families with one service member. Maybe there's a special ceremony coming up for his daughter or something and he just doesn't want to go on this one exercise, this one deployment, this one course.

For a certain amount of time—10%, 5%, I don't know—the member could, without repercussions whatsoever, decide he's staying home. That would allow the commanders to plan. Ninety percent of my unit is available for deployment; I have to account for 10%. Maybe 10% of my unit will take advantage of this program and decide to stay home. That has to be accounted for in the manning, in the operations, in the training, in everything.

To anchor my point, I often remember a case a couple of years ago. This lady, with 19 years in the forces, one year from her pension was scheduled to go on a deployment. She came to me as a social worker—this is my job—and she said, “Sir, can I stay home? I have two dogs; I've had these two dogs for 15 years. I have no family. I have never been married. These two dogs are my family, and one of them is dying of cancer. My dog, my child, will pass away within the next two months. Now I'm being asked to go on this deployment. I just want to stay behind.” “Sorry, ma'am, there is nothing I can do. There's no regulation that offers you the opportunity to say no, I can't go on this deployment. I don't want to go.” Well, she was released from the forces. So 19 years went out the window. She didn't get her pension because she couldn't say no.

That's all I'm asking for: a certain percentage so we can control our career and say no for a certain period of time.

That's it. Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Captain.

Microphone number two.

Master Corporal C.A. Isaacs (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, panel, ladies and gentlemen, comrades, yada yada.

I'd like to speak for a moment on pay. Today's military is more for less: we want to do more with less.

• 1605

I'm sure everyone in this room in the Canadian Forces has heard that we work 365 days a year, 24 hours a day. You can be called in at any time. You have to drop everything you're doing and come into work. I think there are laws in Canada that guarantee people a minimum wage.

Here in Alberta the minimum wage is $5 an hour. That would tell me that even the lowliest private in the Canadian Forces who works here in Alberta should receive roughly $43,800 a year.

I don't want to provide a problem without a solution. We have a morale problem in the Canadian Forces, so we're either left with one of two avenues, as I see it. One would be a considerable raise in pay, and that $43,800 really wouldn't be off line with a lot of other public servants, considering that we receive no overtime benefits, our packages are all less, we can't receive worker's compensation.... I'm sure everyone in this room, if they sat down long enough, could come up with some other benefit that we're not entitled to that civil servants are.

A voice: UIC.

Master Corporal C.A. Isaacs: There you go.

Therefore, we realize it's not really realistic to think a private is going to be paid $43,800. If he did, half the people in the room would probably faint.

We need to redefine our working hours. Every person should be expected to put in a 40-hour work week. Any time they are called in beyond that they should receive compensation in some way. That compensation should be given straight across the board, regardless of rank, unit, position, education, gender, what have you. Everyone has the same entitlements. If I come in and work eight hours.... I either receive time off, where I can say yes, I worked fifteen hours that day and therefore I get another day off, which I can choose at a later time, or I don't have to come into work the next day, or whatever is determined.

It has to be fair. It is not fair for one person who works in a base posting to put in a 40-hour work week and someone who works in a combat unit to put in a 60- or an 80-hour work week. It's just not reasonable. It's not reasonable that somebody calls you up at three in the morning, wakes your whole family up, and says “Hey, we'd like you to come in to work”. In fact, in a lot of cases, I don't even think the military has a policy where they're allowed to do that, but because there is no defined policy letting the soldier know exactly what he's entitled to in black and white simple terms that he can read.... If someone calls me up in the middle of the night and says “Master Corporal Isaacs, come into work right now, you're going to work straight for the next three days”, that's what I do because that's my job.

It's very poor for morale. I really can't see how I do not have the same rights as any other member of Canadian society. It's unreasonable to expect that I would come into work and work straight for three days and receive no compensation for it whatsoever.

I have a wife and two children. If I work on the weekend and am given two days off and they happen to be a Monday and a Tuesday, while my wife works and my two children are at school, that's great; I get to spend two days by myself. It doesn't really compensate for the fact that I had to come in for the weekend.

Let's be realistic. If I came in and worked 24 hours straight...everyone here knows a work day is roughly eight hours. That's three days' work. I've worked three days in one day's time. The compensation I should receive for that should be a lot more than a day off during the week.

I know they made an attempt in the late 1960s to have equal compensation with integration. I think that's fallen apart. The compensation we receive now is very poor.

• 1610

When I joined the Canadian Forces in 1985, people in the Canadian Forces weren't paid really well, but they weren't being paid badly. But the truth is our pay raises from that time until now have been nothing compared with the amount of money that has been taken away from the Canadian Forces soldier in that same period. The cost of living, increases in income tax, increases in sales tax, increases, increases, increases—and a very small increase in our pay, just to say look, we care for you; here, have 1.6%; that should make you happy.

There are privates here on this base who cannot afford to feed their family of one or two children on the amount of money they get. After they pay their rent on a PMQ, they may receive only $300 every two weeks. They were accepted into the Canadian Forces with a young child who requires diapers. They have to wash their clothes. You take all the things away which they have to pay for and you basically put these people into poverty. They are receiving less than they would on welfare.

Well, let's get on with the program. The whole idea of this is to say we care about the members of the Canadian Forces. Well, let's show somehow we do care.

No one here is a slave. The Canadian government says there's a minimum wage here. It's $5 here. It's $7 in B.C. In B.C. a PMQ is rated on the fact that they receive a minimum wage of $7 an hour there. Well, let's adjust the pay of the person who lives in Esquimalt to compensate him for the fact that the cost of living is raised. If it's $5 here and $7 there...$120 to live off the base.... I don't know. It just doesn't seem comparable to me. But maybe I'm wrong.

I would like to touch on the mess dinner thing. Mess dinners are an NPF function. The people who work on mess dinners are covered under NPF rules because it's a matter of non-public funds. If you are required to work at a mess dinner, they are required to pay you to work at the mess dinner. No one can order someone to go and work at a mess dinner. It has to be done on a voluntary basis or you have to be compensated with money. They pay you so much an hour. If you check with the military people who work inside the mess, they receive money for working the extra hours, or they receive some sort of compensation.

Anyone who is told they are going to do it have the right to refuse. It's your responsibility as a member of the Canadian forces to know what you're entitled to, and if you feel somebody is telling you something they are not in a position to tell you, you have the right to say no. If it's in black and white somewhere and you can prove you're right, you're definitely going to win the battle, and we hope you'll win the war.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. I believe Mr. Hanger had a question.

Mr. Art Hanger: Master Corporal, I found some of your comments about this whole business of rights rather interesting. I'm of the understanding that you give up certain rights when you join the military. Am I right?

Master Corporal C.A. Isaacs: Where was that on the piece of paper, sir? I never saw it.

Mr. Art Hanger: You have certain obligations other members of society do not have. You can be called on to do certain things other members of society are not required to do. I guess that is in itself one of those points. You do in fact lose certain freedoms. Like it or not, that seems to be the way it is.

The point I would like to make out of that, though, is this. Because you have given up certain things other members of society don't have, there has to be some protection for you and everyone serving in the military such that you aren't abused; and when I say that, it's on the government side, on the civilian side, by those particular groups.

• 1615

Now, I don't see in the present situation a whole lot of advocates for the military today. There are none. The Governor General is supposed to stand there and come to bat for you as the head of the military, but that isn't happening any more because that doesn't seem to be much in the mandate of the Governor General. So who's going to do it? If it isn't the responsibility of this government and government defence ministers and others sitting at DND to get those points across loud and clear, then you guys are in rough shape. I think that's probably what has happened.

When we talk about rights, I think you have a certain number of rights, but some of them are going to be taken away because you are in the military and there are advocates who should sit firm in government and deal with those concerns the military have and protect you guys. I don't see that happening.

As I learn more about this portfolio and the responsibilities of government toward the military, I see that we as a government group have failed. That's my view of it. So where does that leave us, all of us right here? We have a responsibility to deal with these issues in a very real way. The only thing I don't know is what kinds of assurances you're going to get back at this point in time. I'm speaking as an opposition member. The government side could speak a lot clearer on those points than I could.

Master Corporal C.A. Isaacs: I understand what you're saying, sir, but I believe as a Canadian citizen I'm guaranteed certain rights, and I would challenge anyone in this room to show me where it takes away my right to earn fair pay and to receive minimum wage for the hours that I work. I would say that it is nowhere and it's assumed. What I would put to you is let's assume it no longer. There's a labour relations board out there to protect people.

There are people who have to work and represent their country and then go to the food bank. That's wrong. That's what you people are here for. Send out a strong message. Why should they represent their country in another country away from home and then come back and stand in the food bank line-up because they can't be paid enough to put the basic needs on the table for their family?

I don't think there was any intention by the Canadian government to limit the pay of the Canadian soldier to the point where he was getting less than minimum wage. I would agree that in wartime or during a national emergency a soldier has to be treated differently and he may have fewer rights than the average Canadian citizen due to the nature of his job. But we're talking on a day-to-day basis here. There is no national emergency here; there is no war. Let's get with the program.

Mr. Art Hanger: Your point is well taken, master corporal. I think that most of us are in agreement here that there's been a failure on the part of government to deal with those issues or they wouldn't be rising right now. That's certainly part of what the committee is going to be looking at, I trust, the government side as well as opposition.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Are there any more questions or comments?

Mr. David Pratt: It wasn't so much a question, but Master Corporal Isaacs is certainly free to comment on the subject. I think what Mr. Hanger was getting at, and I think all of us on this committee would agree, is that back in Ottawa at DND headquarters they have some philosopher kings back there and they talk about this idea of the social contract. The essence of that social contract relates to the fact that you people as members of the armed forces have this unlimited liability with respect to the things you do for a living in terms of defending Canada. I think what has happened over the years, whether it's Conservative governments or Liberal governments, is that over time we've seen that social contract steadily eroded in terms of what we as a government and as a society owe the members of the armed forces.

What we're witnessing here today did not happen overnight. It took a long time for us to get to this situation we're in now. But hopefully it won't take as long to correct it. That's certainly my hope.

• 1620

In terms of where we go from here, I think the message we're hearing from people like yourself—and we heard it in Esquimalt, we heard it in Yellowknife, we've heard it everywhere we've been to—is that process has to be reversed. We have to ensure that the people who are wearing the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces are proud of that uniform and that they're honoured to be serving Canada in that way.

It's certainly going to take the efforts of this committee over the next few months. I don't know how long it's going to take us to do our report, but when that report is finished I think we certainly owe it to you folks to send you copies so that you can read what we've had to say out of this entire process. Then it will be our work as opposition members and government members to make sure that the message is driven home in Ottawa. That's essentially our duty, that the message is driven home that this social contract has to be re-established, that it has to be recognized, and not just with the government. Because we're just representatives of the people. We come from all sorts of different backgrounds and political orientations as well. We have to make sure that it's not just the government, but it's the people as a whole who understand what that social contract is all about and who are able to recognize that and have it recognized in terms of pay and benefits and the working conditions for the members of the armed forces.

I just wanted to respond. I think all of us agree certainly with Mr. Hanger's comments. We've got a job ahead of us, there's no doubt about that. We don't want to raise false expectations, but I think you have in this committee a group of people who will advocate for you back in Ottawa. We'll try to do our duty as well as you've done yours.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now to microphone number one please.

Major C.T. Langlais (Individual Presentation): Hello. My name is Major Langlais. I'm a nursing officer with the Canadian Forces medical group here in Edmonton.

The issue I want to bring up today is one that directly affects the health and the care of the personnel in the Canadian Forces. It concerns the recruitment and the retention of medical officers. We will have a crisis situation within five years because of the number of physicians we are not able to recruit and those who will be leaving the forces and who are leaving on a daily basis.

The salaries of physicians in the military cannot compete with the salaries in the civilian sector. This does directly affect the health of our troops, because it provides fragmented care. For instance, here in Edmonton we have two regular force physicians working at the garrison clinic. Those two physicians cannot provide all the care for the troops in Garrison Edmonton. So we contract out to physicians, hoping that we can get some of the physicians in the area to come and work. What happens is on any given day you can have two to three different physicians, and when you go back chances are you will not see the same physician. That's from one coast to the next.

The physicians have not gotten an increase in salary.... I don't know the exact deals over the years. There is a group working in Ottawa trying to recruit physicians right now by offering them a bonus package for direct-entry officers. I know for a fact that has not been very successful.

I think it's very important that we look at this issue, because it affects the health of our troops. Our troops require the most advanced medical treatment when they're deployed. In order to provide them with that we have to have well-trained medical officers in uniform. I think one of the options that could be looked at too is the reserves. Unfortunately, as was brought up earlier, there is no job security for medical officers or even for nursing officers in a reserve unit to come and to serve while we're deployed.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Now to microphone number two.

Corporal G.K. Boyce (Individual Presentation): Thank you. My name is Corporal Boyce. I'm 1 ASG Transport Company.

A lot of the previous speakers have touched on the points I wanted to, so I won't go back over them. One of them touches on what the major just said.

• 1625

For the last little while there has been a kind of catch phrase used in the media to define what's been happening in the various sectors of the public service, and that's “brain drain”. It's starting to happen here. It's not just the doctors and the dentists. Technical trades, and even my own, are starting to be affected by it.

I'm a truck driver. In civilian street, almost all truck drivers are paid by the mile. If I spent the same number of hours on the road as a civilian as I do in the military, I'd be making substantially more money than I do here.

That's something to consider when you're speaking about pay and benefits and what not. You have to factor in what the person actually does and make some allowance for paying them accordingly. Otherwise we're going to be paying to train people to work in the private sector.

A lot is said about morale. I've worked in a lot of different jobs over the years, civilian and military, and I can tell you that nothing will drag down morale much quicker than an organization—large, small, military, civilian, whatever—that seems to lack direction. In my short career I've seen us go from an army that is supposed to be trained to fight wars to a peacekeeping army and now to this big, multifaceted, do everything, be all things to all people kind of army. It might look good on paper, but it's not going to work that well.

You're going to have to figure out what you want us to be and clearly define it. Put it down on paper: You will be this. After you do that, you're going to have to consider something else, and that is the cost of doing business. You can only cut so much. Certain services, certain products, in society cost more than others. If I'm a civilian truck driver and I'm serving my customers, I have to maintain my vehicle. I have to buy fuel. I have to pay employees. Those are costs I can't get away from.

When you decide what type of military this is going to be, there is a cost involved in it. You have to pay that or you cannot help but get a substandard product. If the brain drain continues, you are going to get substandard people. You get what you pay for.

There is another point I want to throw out that doesn't really connect with the other ones. It has to do with our military pension. It's entirely possible that I'm the only one in the room who feels this way. You may all feel this way. I don't know.

I pay a certain percentage of my salary towards the military pension. I don't have a choice. It's automatic; it's compulsory. Years ago that was probably a good thing, because it ensured people had something to retire on, but this is 1998. The number and the types of options open to people today for private RRSPs and the number of financial services that are offered.... I think our pension has fallen way, way, way behind. I don't necessarily mean the amount of our pension cheque. What I'm specifically referring to is.... I have to pay $130 to $140—I forget what the figure is—toward my pension each month. I don't have the option of using that money and investing it myself, where I could be making who knows what in interest.

• 1630

What that amounts to is the government is helping itself to more than $100 of my money every month and I don't get any say in how it's used. It's fine if I serve out my term and I get my monthly pension or whatever, or if I get out early I get return of contributions with some minor percentage added to that. But I wish we at least had the option of opting out of this program so that we could take our money and invest it in our way, privately—or at least a portion of it. In that way we would control the money we make. Failing that, our own pension system should be dramatically reworked to come up to today's standard.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are you aware that the government pays a portion into the pension fund?

Corporal G.K. Boyce: No doubt. Yes, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you think that if you were released from the obligation of paying into a pension it would apply to all and all would be responsible in handling their money in such a way that they would have something for retirement?

Corporal G.K. Boyce: I didn't catch the first part of what you said, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you think that all members within the forces would be responsible enough to ensure that they'd have enough for retirement?

Corporal G.K. Boyce: Maybe, or maybe not. But the fact still remains that it's our money. I don't say that you should wipe out the pension system, but I would like at least to have the option not to pay into it, to take that portion of money I give to the government each month and take it and use it in a better, more efficient manner for myself.

Mr. Art Hanger: Another point I'd like to ask deals in a way with retirement. Many people in this country pay a considerable amount through mortgages to build up equity in their house. By the time they in fact retire, many have a house available that is paid off for the most part. With that of course there's a substantial equity that eventually for many will be used as, if you will, a fund for their retirement, in addition to whatever else they may accumulate.

As a corporal, would you be able to qualify for a mortgage to buy a house today?

Corporal G.K. Boyce: Right at the present time, yes, I can. But that is my own individual situation. I can't speak for other people. My particular situation allows me to live on our pay scale considerably more easily than other people. But I am very much the exception and not the rule. I cannot pretend to speak for other people, so I'm not going to.

Mr. Art Hanger: So you're saying that on a corporal's pay many could not actually qualify for say a $100,000 mortgage.

Corporal G.K. Boyce: Quite possibly not, sir. I could, but that's my situation. I have factors that don't apply to the military at all.

Mr. Art Hanger: Pardon?

A voice:

[Editor's Note—Inaudible].

Mr. Art Hanger: You couldn't qualify for one?

A voice:

[Editor's Note—Inaudible].

Mr. Art Hanger: Third level incentive. How many years of service?

A voice:

[Editor's Note—Inaudible].

Mr. Art Hanger: Tenth year of service. Thank you.

Thanks, Corporal.

The Chairman: We will allow the last two speakers at microphone number one because of time constraints. For people who want to come back tonight, we will be having another session after dinner. If you can't make it, please feel free to write in your comments to the clerk of the committee.

• 1635

Sergeant T.J. Hoppe (Individual Presentation): My name is Sergeant Hoppe. I'm with the LdSH. I have a few points. The first two will probably raise a few eyebrows from my higher-up, but as a senior NCO I have to look out for my men.

First, why, when I retire at 20 years, do I get only 40% of my pension, yet when an officer retires at 20 years, he gets 60% of his pension? That's what we were told at the last SCAN seminar, which was before Christmas. I could be wrong, but that's what we were informed.

The second one is the performance bonus. We've all read about it in the paper. Why is it that individuals at certain ranks get performance bonuses when this whole room is full of people who work hard and we have guys, as has been stated, who are going down to the food bank? I'll leave that one up to you.

About injuries and medical matters, I have a member who is working for me right now and who is going to be released from the military for an injury he received while he was in service. He's being forced out and he's having a hard time getting his medical pension. He has applied through the appropriate channels and he has got a reply back that all his injuries are non-military-related, even though the paperwork he filled out at the time of the injury states that it was military-related. This individual now has to start to fight for his pension. Why should this individual have to fight for his medical pension? This is our compensation and we should not have to fight for it if it's deemed that injury was caused during his time in the military.

Along with that, there should be some kind of retraining program for people who are released from the military for injuries. For example, if I myself get injured and I can still function, I have no training to work on civilian street. Some kind of system should be put in place for us to get some kind of training.

The other one the major talked about and isn't talked about much is PTSD. I have members who work for me and who have this problem and are keeping it to themselves because it's not recognized in the forces and they are worried about losing their careers and the implications. It is recognized in a sense, but not to the point where they can come out in the open.

A solution for that would be.... The Americans have gone through this in Vietnam, and they have a system in place that seems to work well. Maybe that's something to look into.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

The last speaker.

Master Corporal C.D. Brunnelle (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Master Corporal Brunnelle. I'm from 3 PPCLI.

I just wanted to comment on the FRC. It's my understanding that the only thing that's funded for the FRC through public funds is core positions within the FRC, not the actual programs. The programs are run by volunteers. If more money went towards programs, we could offer these programs to the members of our community.

I was just jotting these down as people were talking.

Treasury Board last year put forth child care benefits for single parents. What about wives who take on jobs at night so their husbands can be at home to take care of the kids? When they get deployed, they have to pay extra babysitting fees to cover their husband's being gone. Also, for married service couples who are deployed at the same time, there's no compensation package for them. I know the policy for single parents hasn't yet come down in CANFORGEN, but the Treasury Board did make an announcement that it would be through.

For those of us who pay into the public service health care plan, I think it should be open to military members who don't qualify under the military system to be covered for certain things such as chiropractic or massage therapy. When I go on that rucksack march on Monday morning, by Monday night I'm dead. If I could be covered for some of those expenses.... I'm not asking for all of them, but if the civilians can claim it on the public service health care plan, why can't we claim it on the public service health care plan too? Right now you can get all these done, but you have to go to physiotherapy and you have to get all this other stuff done, and the doctor has to certify it, instead of your just walking down there and saying, “Look, my back is sore. I'll pay the $40 and I'll claim it on the public service health care plan.”

• 1640

With regard to civilian contracting, when I was in Calgary it was a total farce. It cost the Canadian taxpayers $300 to change a light bulb that I could have changed myself. I went down to supply and said I needed a light bulb. “No, you can't do it. You've got to bring contractors in to do it.” They hired a contractor from Red Deer to come to Calgary to change a light bulb. They paid him a high rate of mileage, his meals and his full day's wages to change these light bulbs, when I could have gone down to supply, picked up light bulbs and screwed them in. I just don't understand that.

A week later another contractor from Red Deer came to change the same light bulb. I asked him what he was doing, and he said he had a work order. So $300 for one light bulb. What is that? Alternate service delivery.

The Chairman: A very expensive light bulb.

Master Corporal C.D. Brunnelle: That's all I have.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Are there any questions or comments?

I would like to thank everyone for their interventions this afternoon. I know we have to leave, but we will be back around 6 p.m. for a meeting with the spouses. I do encourage you to bring your spouses out, because it's important. We heard from you people this afternoon, but it's also extremely important that we hear from your spouses tonight.

Again, thank you very much. We'll see you tonight.