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]

Monday, February 9, 1998

• 1916

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to this evening's information session.

I am sure you know why this committee is here: the minister gave us a mandate to go and consult members of The armed Forces on the bases and to make recommendations to improve their living conditions.

It is important to stress once again that our committee is not a National Defence committee. We are a parliamentary committee, which is very different and completely independent from the military system. As you will see later, when I ask the various participants to introduce themselves, we represent nearly every political party.

I would invite those who wish to use translations devices to pick them up at the back of the room.

We currently have three names on our witness list. Each witness will come up to the microphone and make a presentation, after which parliamentarians will ask questions. If anyone else wishes to speak afterwards, they can give their name to Eric.

I would now like to ask the parliamentarians to introduce themselves. If you don't mind, I will start. My name is Robert Bertrand and I am chairman of the committee. I represent the riding of Pontic—Gatineau—Labelle in the Outaouais region.

[English]

Please identify yourselves.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): My name is David Pratt. I'm the member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton, which is just outside of Ottawa.

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

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): I'm Leon Benoit, member of Parliament from east central Alberta and Reform deputy defence critic.

[Translation]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf, BQ): Pierre de Savoye, member for Portneuf. For those who live in Val-Bélair, Sainte-Catherine and Shannon, I am your member of Parliament.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Pierrette Venne, member of the Bloc Québécois and National Defence critic. I represent the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint Hubert.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Without any further ado, we will hear our first witness. Captain Rodrigue.

Captain Suzie Rodrigue (Head of psycho-social services, CFB Valcartier): I will not speak long this evening in order to give the people from the base an opportunity to speak as well. But I would like to give a brief summary of what we have seen today and give you an idea of what is happening in terms of families.

• 1920

As we saw today, the Canadian Armed Forces have seen a lot of changes over the past few years. These changes have had a major impact on the members of The armed Forces, their families, their children and anyone related to them. Yes, it is true that as an institution, we have seen a lot of changes.

Since this evening's topic is the family, I would like the family to also be recognized as an institution. As an institution, in the Canadian context, families have also undergone a lot of changes in the past decade, especially the definition of a family. In the past, we had the traditional family, husband, wife, child and dog. This definition is now much broader than it was 10 years ago. The divorce rate is much higher, not only for members of The armed Forces, but also among civilians. We see a lot more blended families and single parent families. That affects us. You will find both men and women as heads of single parent families. You will also find a lot of blended families. This generates a lot of stress.

In the Canadian Armed Forces, the family is still perceived as the traditional family of 20 years ago, where the wife would follow her husband wherever he went. There wasn't as great a need to work back then. The framework was more traditional.

All Canadians have witnessed the numerous changes in family structures. There is now much more sharing in terms of family structure and family needs. Husbands are expected to do more and an increasing number of spouses are going back to work. In some cases, they have no choice but to work because of the current social and economic conditions.

In a nutshell, one could say that the military institution and the family are currently in a state of flux. There are many aspects of the family structure that must be reevaluated. How are family conflicts resolved? How are family needs being met? How are the military system requirements being met?

These situations generate conflicts within families and create problems. Of course, people from here are often transferred, which means that the families who stay behind must work even harder to keep things organized. Even though they are often perfectly capable of doing so, the support services, such as day care centres and sport activities are important. Rather than list all the services, I will let others tell you about them.

The thing to remember is that family structures are undergoing a great deal of change which has caused a lot of internal conflict, between the family institution and the military institution. That is why we feel there should be a family policy to help us find ways to manage these conflicts in such a way that we can meet the need of both the family and the organization.

I will end here and ask others to talk about their experiences over the past ten years and to support what I have just said. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

• 1925

Some members may wish to ask you some questions.

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You spoke about meeting the needs of families and the military organization. As you said, society has evolved but the structures haven't. They are the same as they were 20 years ago, if not more.

If we could set just one priority—I am sure we will find more—, what do you think it should be?

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: If you could make just one major change, we would no doubt say a salary increase. Absolutely nothing has happened in that regard in the past five years. That should be a priority.

The other important aspect is transfers. Some military personnel whose spouse has an interesting career do not want to be transferred. I could give you hundreds of examples. That should be taken into account when you try to meet the needs of both parties and reach a compromise.

A service man can refuse to be promoted to sergeant and career advancement because he feels it is more important to give his wife a chance, who may have already followed him to three postings and who had always felt she had to start over every time. Why don't you give that service man the opportunity to stay home? There has to be some form of compensation. As I said, families are no longer what they use to be and you have to face reality, understand it, digest it and find some solution. I don't have all the answers.

Some people might be able to suggest better solutions, but it is clear that as an institution, things have to be dealt with differently. Of course, policies are necessary, but what do they really mean? I do not have all the answers. The first thing that must be dealt with are the areas that cause the most problems, especially when it comes to families. Is it really important? That is another question that should be asked.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Good evening.

I heard from you some of the concerns that I've heard expressed by others, here today and in other places across the country. You were talking about the need to reduce the conflict between the military and the family. The military, on the one hand, the people who have presented to us, the leaders in the military, have said in fact that they are very sensitive to the needs of families, and yet you're saying there's a lot to be done yet, that there's a lot of change needed.

Has there been a change over the past five years? Have you seen some improvement over the past five years, or are things as difficult as they were five years ago in terms of the military really showing concern for families?

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: Just rephrase it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm just wondering if there's been any improvement in the past five years.

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: I think there has been some improvement at some level, and I'm not saying that at the individual base, like here, people are not sensitive to that. I think it goes higher than here. That's what I'm saying.

If we look at this base, yes, there has been a lot of improvement in terms of how we care and provide services to help people. But sometimes we have to start thinking about what it is we're doing here, and why we're doing that, and is there something else we could do better? What is the real problem?

• 1930

As I said, I don't have all the answers, but I can see and I can tell that there have been, at some level, some improvements in services for families. How we can measure that on the big scale I don't know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think there has been some improvement in the military accommodating, for example, husbands and wives who are both in the service, especially when they have children, so they are not split up any more often than would be necessary because of overseas deployment and that type of thing? Has there been improvement in that area? That's one of the concerns I've heard expressed pretty loud and clear.

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: That's one area that is problematic, mainly because, as I said, the family has changed. When we talk about new structures, this is one that could be problematic: how do we deal in the forces with dual couples who have to deploy and have children?

As I say, at some level the system is trying to help the best it can, but sometimes we have our hands tied too. That's why I'm saying if we have to change it, how can we do it? What is the solution?

Don just asked me a question. I don't want to keep the floor, because there are a lot of people here. They have plenty of examples and will probably provide you with better solutions or scenarios they have themselves encountered as families, and with children, too.

M. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I would just like to ask you if you know how many service women are married to service men. If we are to make recommendations on a policy for military couples, we have to know whether the numbers would warrant such a policy, or at least have some idea.

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: I do not have the number.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Can we get it, Mr. Chairman? It would be important to have it if we are to make recommendations.

The Chairman: Yes.

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: Our statistical service in Ottawa should be able to give you those figures. One shouldn't look only at military couples, but also take into account single-parent families.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I know that. In fact, I spoke to military couples this afternoon about the very specific problems they experience when they are both transferred abroad and that they have children. There are also single-parent families, but I specifically wanted information on military couples.

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: Personally, I would like to see a committee examine this problem so that we can develop a policy and establish the necessary directives. We need to consult the people who are involved in this area.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you.

The Chairman: I would have one last question, Captain. This morning, General Couture told us that the committee could recommend that a family policy be developed. Do you share that opinion, and if so, what should that policy include? Earlier we heard about certain aspects, but I would like you to suggest other views for our study.

Capt Suzie Rodrigue: As I told those who came to visit the hospital, during screening visits, our social workers have noted an increasingly frequent problem that arises when, in the same month, a family is transferred from Ontario to here, for instance, and the soldier is sent on a six-month mission.

• 1935

We've encountered problems in this regard. After an assessment of the potential problems, we concluded that the person was not in a position to be sent on a mission immediately, invoking reasons such as the fact that the couple had not had time to adapt to their new environment.

When we conduct such assessments, we can only issue recommendations. We do not have a family policy that stipulates that in certain circumstances, people transferred to new locations should not be sent on a six-month mission, unless there's a waiver or an evaluation that confirms that they are capable of doing this. Right now, our scope of action to reduce stressful factors for families is limited. This situation is very demanding for the members of a family that are left behind. As soon as they arrive in an operational location like this one, before they have time to adjust and adapt to the community and find the resources they need, the soldier leaves on a mission.

We are asking that the family have at least six months when they arrive at a new location before the soldier is subject to a transfer or send on a course. We would hope that the family get the time to create a network, to acclimatize to the region and to settle in. If the children have specific needs or experience specific problems, we must ensure that the necessary resources are put at their disposal.

That is one example, and I'm sure you will hear others. As I said, I would like to let people tell you about it themselves.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Captain.

Mr. Raymond Carrier.

Mr. Raymond Carrier (director, Family Centre): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen members of the committee, I will be very brief, as I would prefer to give the floor to the ladies and gentlemen who are here. Representatives of our 130 volunteers working at our Family Centre are present here today and I would like them to tell us what they think of the services of the centre and its support through their partnership work. I would also like the ladies and gentlemen to tell you whether they feel that this centre does not have enough money to support women and help them reenter the workforce, despite the subsidy it receives from the federal government. A multitude of women and men who need such services are partially or fully excluded from this employment assistance program because we don't have enough money to hire people.

I would also like parents of teenagers to tell you whether they are satisfied with the fact that the youth club on the base is only open two nights a week and close during the summer, because of the lack of money to pay session leaders.

I would like the wives of the military personnel to tell you whether they appreciate the services they receive when their spouses are on missions abroad. I would also like them to tell you what kind of services they would like to obtain, including those they need when they experience problems with their children.

In short, these men and women have many messages to communicate to you this evening. Personally, as director of the Family Centre, I hope that your committee will transmit their message to the Ottawa Directorate that looks after support for families of military personnel and that this message will clearly show these people that they must give us sufficient autonomy here, at the Family Centre, so that we can adapt our services to our own problems and not those of other provinces.

The operational framework currently forces us to offer the same services from coast to coast, which, in my opinion, does not meet our needs. We would like to have a bit more latitude to be able to serve our families as they would wish. I'm convinced that there are many people here who have something to say and I hope that they will express themselves candidly and freely, because they are here to discuss concrete problems that they experience in day-to- day life. Believe me, these people are subjected to far more problems than we may think. Therefore, I hope that they will feel free to speak their minds. I'm sure that that will be the case.

• 1940

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Carrier. I would now ask Mr. Yves Labonté to take the floor.

Master Warrant Officer Yves Labonté (Representative of Headquarter Personnel and Force Signal Squadron): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, at lunch time we already discussed the brief that I will present, but I would like to present it in another way, for the benefit of our community. The brief deals with the problems that were just mentioned and that are truly important. It deals precisely with the impact of transfers on personnel.

I will discuss the transfer policy in the Forces, identify deficiencies and propose certain solutions.

There have been no major changes to the transfer policy in the past several years. This policy may have been adequate 20 or 30 years ago, but today, it does not meet the needs of our members.

On the contrary, the current transfer policy is a source of stress our personnel must face, from a family, social and economic standpoint. In many cases, a transfer is offered simply because the normal assignment time has run out. In a way, people are transferred solely because they've been in the same place for six or eight years.

Moreover, these transfers are regularly announced barely a few months before the date of the change. This does not always enable the family to prepare adequately. It is not rare that we receive messages a few months or even a few days before we're called upon to relocate. This is really inadequate when you think of the impact that can have on a family. Career management must be planned in a much longer term.

This procedure often places our personnel in very difficult family, personal and economic circumstances. These problems are experienced by many of our members. Many years ago, when most of the rules that governed us were put in place, family income was essentially the man's salary. The reality today, both in society and in the Armed Forces, is that the economic survival of the family depends on the income of two parents, both spouses. Increasingly, both spouses have comparable incomes, and the spouses of military personnel have well-established careers with benefits and other conditions that are impossible to transfer to the new location. One of the spouses is therefore forced to possibly abandon his or her employment and often his or her career to accommodate the other.

Frequently the military spouse must leave his or her job after a transfer. Usually, it is impossible to find another comparable job or one with the same conditions at the place of the new transfer. Presently there is no compensation or help available to make back-to-work easier.

A few years ago, a transfer would often translate into some financial gain accruing from the sale of the house, which would contribute to lightening the financial burden that the family had to assume. Nowadays, money is frequently lost during such transactions. Although there are programs available for reimbursement or for buy-backs, they are not flexible and not all military personnel having suffered such losses can take advantage of them.

The education of children often causes a problem during a transfer. The programs are often different in different provinces, and frequently a child has to repeat his or her grade in school after a transfer.

Adolescence in particular is a period during which children develop their own personal values. It is important for them to be able to develop in a stable environment. During certain periods, a transfer can have a devastating effect and bring about undesirable effects such as lessening of performance in school. This can even lead all the way to delinquency.

• 1945

An important point to understand is that during a transfer, at certain times, parents should have a great deal to say. They are the only ones who know when and in what circumstances a transfer can be acceptable for their families.

After a transfer, the social net of a family has been reduced to a minimum. At such times, the family members are highly vulnerable, especially if the military spouse has to be absent for a long period of time, for example on a mission for the United Nations or for some long exercise. This is a new source of tremendous tension and it requires the services of an elaborate rear party, of agencies and specialized personnel, as has already been said.

When a family moves into a new home, a certain amount of renovation work is often necessary for the family to be able to enjoy a standard of living comparable to what it had in its previous family home. Presently, relocation allowances don't adequately cover of the real costs involved in inserting a family into a new environment.

This increases the financial burden that our members have to bear. Travelling time allowed for searching for a new residence is generally about a week. This is not sufficient for finding a residence, a job for the spouse, a school for the children and a part of town suitable to the needs of the family. All that has to be done in five or six days. This is impossible. Nor does this allow the military personnel to get familiar with the conditions of the local real estate market and could even bring them to make mistakes that they will have to pay for when the house is resold.

Obviously the present way of dealing with transfers no longer corresponds to the needs of our personnel and very often causes far too much harm. We propose certain amendments which would improve the transfer procedures and make them compatible with today's reality.

We propose that transfer periods be extended so as to reduce the number of transfers occurring within the course of a career. These transfers should only be offered to fill the needs of the service; transferring someone simply because they've been in one place for the last six years is not always sensible, and moreover it is very costly.

Transfers should be announced at least a year ahead of time so as to allow the members and their families time for proper preparation. In some cases, this would mean that all the family members will have to learn the second official language. When you are thrown into a new environment and you don't know the language, integration is much more difficult. And if we could know this a year ahead of time, it would help people to better prepare themselves and thus avoid many problems.

We have another criticism to make. Our career managers are now working in career administration. No management is done at that level. You only react. You do last minute planning and the burden is shouldered by our members, by ourselves. We are the ones who have to live with the consequences and pay the costs of our administrators' management errors.

If we had a year to get prepared for a transfer, we'd be in a much better position to go through this painful experience. It is essential to ensure that a transferred military person should never suffer financial losses simply because he has responded to the needs of the service. It's a huge nightmare. Presently, almost all those transferred who are home owners lose money, and it is not always possible to get a reimbursement, because very often there is some small condition that we have not fulfilled and thereby the system does not have to reimburse you. This has a devastating effect. It is unbelievable. It is essential to take into account the family situation when a transfer is being contemplated, and it is all the more important with case of a family with children. Earlier we were talking about a family policy. It is essential to develop this type of policy when counselling people. We must deal with the whole impact that this has on individuals. A person arriving at a new posting and having to deal with all sorts of problems that are of financial, personal or family nature cannot be a productive person. They cannot be of any use to the system if they are having all those problems, whatever rank or position they might be in. We go on creating problems instead of obtaining the services of fully competent individuals in full possession of all their faculties.

The actual costs of relocation should be reimbursed. Presently, we're only talking about some 800 $ when moving to a new house; that only pays for the curtains; and that's about all. The rest comes out of our pockets. Everything has to start over from scratch each time you move. Everything must be started anew: laying down asphalt, building a patio, a garden shack, landscaping, painting the house, changing the curtains, and that's the only thing that they reimburse.

• 1950

A serious program to help military spouses find jobs is necessary to help them get back into the job market. Presently, the only help given if for writing a CV. Believe me, this only has a minimal impact.

My spouse is a dental assistant. We moved to Ontario. She could not work immediately because she only had certification from Québec. In Ontario, she had to go through some exams which took a certain amount of time. She had to learn English, she had to follow courses. She wrote the exam with people who came from Japan, Europe and South America. Before being able to work in her own profession—and she was fully qualified—she was treated just like someone coming from another country.

A longer travel time for finding a residence should be granted so that people could really meet the true requirements of a relocation. This has an enormous impact when the time to sell comes around. If we have made a poor choice during the two or three days that we have to decide on acquiring a home, we'll have to pay the price for them when we leave. At that time, the system will tell us: listen, you don't meet this or that condition and therefore we cannot reimburse you or help you in any way.

It's difficult, when moving into a new part of town, or into a new province, to grasp all the subtle details of the local real estate market. It's extremely difficult to do all that within two or three days. But actually, that's what we get. This was adequate 20 years ago, when profits of 10, 15 and 20% were made each time you sold the house. Now, this is no longer the case: you lose 10, 15 and even 20% when you sell a house, you lose that money.

This subject deserves particular attention. Transfers are a source of problems for many people. This is at the very basis of the decline in personnel morale. And then, they turn into burdens, administration problems, etc. Thank you.

Some hon. members: Bravo!

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Labonté.

[English]

Mr. Benoit, you have a question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

I appreciated your brief. In particular, you offered some solutions. I think what I've heard from you I heard earlier this afternoon in many of these proposals, and indeed in other places, so you're not the only one who thinks this way.

I have a couple of questions. You suggested a one-year notice for postings. Is that realistic? Can you run the military on a year's notice for postings?

MWO Yves Labonté: In my opinion, yes. If the career managers are allowed to manage instead of administrate, yes, it is possible. It may not be accurate 100% of the time, but if we can manage it 70% or 80% of the time, it's a very large improvement over what we have now. It may not be achievable all the time, but the longer notice we give, the better people will be prepared and the less trouble they will have going through the process.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I had a secretary once, several years ago, who said a lack of foresight on my part didn't constitute an emergency on her part.

I think there have to be ways that the military can accommodate a lot more notice than is given now. I've heard of cases where it is literally just a few days.

MWO Yves Labonté: Oh, absolutely. Last year, many messages were sent in May and June. It's ridiculous. I'm up for a posting this year. People in my location have already sold their houses. There are already signs of sold houses on the market. I'm not even on the market yet. I don't even know what's going to happen. I know there's a possibility...I may find out in March or in May. I may go alone. I don't know. Career managers this year are not allowed to send any message before the end of February. This is a requirement they have this year.

This is not the best management we can have. This is administration by bean counters; it has nothing to do with management.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So for all the talk of really caring about people, which is important, of course, to make an organization work well, to make the military work well, you feel that the actions, in some cases at least, don't back up the words.

• 1955

MWO Yves Labonté: I feel there is a lot of sensitivity at the lower level within the brigade here, a lot of compassion, a lot of understanding. But the further you go up in the chain, the colder the decisions are, the more administrative they are. They do not reflect the need, they do not reflect the reality of the situation. They are just administrative decisions that are taken, and we have to assume the price.

The feeling that I have is that some people in higher levels have the mandate to save some money, and too often this is done at our expense. Every time they save money, it's costing me money, it's costing us money, and it's not money well saved. The impact is tremendous.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and in many cases there's probably no money saved at all.

When it comes to deployment of one spouse, say, where children are involved, something that splits people apart when someone else.... Actually, in some cases that I've heard of, someone else who has the qualifications to do the job has volunteered for the deployment, yet there's just no consideration given to that.

MWO Yves Labonté: For some reason, this is something we hear a lot. That's why there is need for a policy that we could count on, that we could apply, that we could use to say, listen, I need some protection.

An important point that I would also like to raise is the fact that we are not a unionized organization. Every member in the service is in it of his free will and is ready to deploy anywhere in the world at any time under short notice—and we have seen that recently. In about twelve hours, the whole brigade moved to Montreal. There was no opposition. There was nobody saying they were not ready to do that, no one who wanted to oppose. It was not done, because everybody is willing to do this. I feel we are sacrificing the security of a union because of the operational requirement that the military needs. It cannot work without that flexibility. But in the process, we also lose the ability to defend ourselves properly.

I myself am going through the process of a redress of grievance on the last posting I had. This happened five years ago. I spent two years in an administrative process, two years in a redress of grievance process, and it's still not finished. I'm not a lawyer; I'm not a writer. You should see the amount of paper that I have to produce to go through that process. It's amazing, and I have to do it without any help. As I said, I could not rely on a union member to help me. All of that is the burden of the member, and the amount of pressure is sometimes overwhelming. The obstacle is so difficult, it's overwhelming.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I just have one more question.

You also said there must be special consideration given where a family is involved. Are you in fact saying that isn't the case now? Do you feel there is really no special consideration now when a family is involved versus a situation when one is not?

MWO Yves Labonté: Again, this is happening at the lowest levels. Within the organization here, I feel very confident and safe that there are considerations, that there are people to talk to and to get help from, but they can't be consulted to fix something that's broken. There is no preventative process to prevent these breakages, to prevent a family from going through hardship. We can't prevent it ahead of time. Mostly, it's patchwork that's done after the fact. This is very helpful, but it's not a prevention of the problem; it's a repair of the problem. I'm very satisfied that this is happening, but often the problem could have been prevented simply by having, let's call it a family policy of some kind, a directive that says we consider the people before we take our decisions that concern them.

Often members are willing to sacrifice their career progression to accommodate the family requirements, and this is not accepted normally. People have to carry on.

• 2000

Mr. Leon Benoit: I am encouraged, though, that today I've heard several people say that in fact there is consideration on this base; it's decisions that are made in Ottawa.

MWO Yves Labonté: I think it reflects the feeling of the community, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. So it is encouraging that people here on the base are working hard for you. We'll do what we can to try to push things along in Ottawa.

Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye:

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Mr. Labonté, I'd like to congratulate you on your presentation. I would also like to congratulate you for the nine recommendations that you have given to the committee; these recommendations are directly related to the points you have raised, and they do so in an operational manner.

I understand, from what you are saying, that when a transfer comes around, there are family and financial costs to pay, and you are under the impression that, on both sides, you pay the bill anyway. You had saved a certain small amount of capital to buy a house, you sell the house at a loss and perhaps you are even left without any means to buy an new house for yourself on the other base.

MWO Yves Labonté: And we also have to explain the whole thing to our spouse.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Yes and you have to explain all that to your spouse. Yes, spouses merit our applause.

Some hon. members: Hear! Hear!

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Today someone told me that to be a military spouse, you had to be a very special kind of person.

Some hon. members: Hear! Hear!

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: But I must tell you that in order to be a military person, you also have to be a very special kind of guy or girl. You are very brave and hard workers.

Having said that, you say that if there must be transfers, they should only occur in order to respond to the needs of the service. You've all been transferred and sometimes you're left with the impression that these transfers are not made to respond to the needs of the services, but merely because it is written in the rules and that it is an old habit that we're still dragging along with us and that we should perhaps stop dragging along.

MWO Yves Labonté: When you exchange four quarters for a dollar what have you accomplished? There are people who have been trained, who are qualified, who are competent in their work, and one day for some reason or another, they receive a transfer notification. This person leaves and someone else of the same rank comes to replace them. And what has been gained by that?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: They've displaced two families and we have two unhappy military persons.

MWO Yves Labonté: Precisely.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In your mind, how many transfers are really useful for the service and how many of them, proportionally, are simply the consequences of a regulation that has been applied for a long time?

MWO Yves Labonté: Generally, when there is a vacant position to be filled because of a promotion, obviously the transfer is necessary. Usually, it comes with a promotion. In such cases, there is a certain advantage for the person being transferred.

For other postings there must be compulsory staff rotations after a certain length of time. Some postings are remote. Some postings are not all that pleasant. And in such cases, we have to rotate the personnel. But very often we transfer people without knowing why we do so. People don't want to move. The person replacing the one who doesn't want to leave, does not want to leave the place they are presently occupying. And so we are in a vicious circle. Two, three or five people are displaced, and none of them are any happier for it.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You're saying that transfers should be accompanied with certain incentives. You're also saying that some personnel would prefer to sacrifice their career advancement to keep their family stable. What kind of incentive do you have in mind? What would the consequences be for one's career if you prefer to keep your family stable?

MWO Yves Labonté: This would affect his career advancement. Presently, the only way to get a raise in salary, is through these promotions. Sometimes people decide to renounce their career promotions and their salary raises to allow their spouse to follow a career as well. We are counting on the fact that there is stability and that you can pay for your house to finally end up upon retirement with some assets. These are the advantages. That is the price that people might pay.

• 2005

What was the first part of your question?

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: In your recommendation, you state that a transfer should come with incentives. What kind of incentives?

MWO Yves Labonté: For instance, transfer policies should only be based on need. Rather when transferring people, we would post a certain number of available postings. We'd invite military personnel to apply as candidates and we chose the most competent person, the one best fitted to fill that posting. The people who apply would be the ones who are ready to move; they would have prepared for this and they would be doing it in view of acquiring something: namely going to a place they want to go to or obtaining the promotion that goes with the posting.

It seems to me that it would be easy to run things in this way. In any case, it would not be impossible. Provincial and federal police forces work more or less according to that principle.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you very much, Mr. Labonté.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Pierre.

Madame Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Mr. Labonté, all of you from what I gather today, have career managers. Do these career managers consult you to find out whether you are interested in a transfer or not?

MWO Yves Labonté: I speak to my career manager very regularly. If I leave here this summer, it will be to go to a career manager's job.

Very likely I'll be jumping into that stewing pot if he manages to make up his mind. I frequently speak with the career manager about my work. And I have noted that his hands are tied. He follows guidelines and he has to make the decisions he makes. He is not working as a manager. He is merely an administrator. That's what I've noticed.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: You are talking about relocation costs that should be reimbursed and you say that the amount presently reimbursed to military personnel does no correspond at all to reality. What is that amount?

MWO Yves Labonté: I might stand corrected on that, but I will tell you that with $850, all you can buy are curtains. And the rest comes out of our pockets. With each move, it all starts over again. Some people can enter into a house, live in it and do nothing with it. Unfortunately, I'm one of those who, when they move into a house, give it a new coat of paint, work on the landscaping, etc. This always costs a few thousand dollars. And this is unavoidable if you want to reach the same standard of living as you had before. It's all very nice to move, but we don't want to move to worse conditions. We want to have a warm and comfortable home.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: You told me earlier, if I'm not wrong, that you don't have an union and that you can only count on yourselves; basically, that it what you were implying. Between yourself and your superior, shouldn't there be a bond of confidence that should help you both?

MWO Yves Labonté: Most certainly. As I was saying earlier, I'm talking about a personal experience that I'm presently living through. I received a great deal of support from my unit. I also received support from the brigade, but the further away you get the lesser the support you feel. In a procedure for redress of injustice, you can get the services of an individual to help you get through this work, I chose to do it on my own, but that entails an enormous amount of work: there is preparation, writing, confrontations with higher authorities, etc. There is no end to it. You get turned down on mere technical details. People in higher level positions, study everything that we write. They seek out the tiniest flaw so as to be able to refuse our request.

• 2010

If they spent as much time on looking on how the current regulations could assist us, that would be a considerable help to us. Those people, by their own admission, are there just to save money. In my view, they should also be there to give us what we're entitled to.

Yes, regulations can be open to interpretation, but such interpretation is usually restrictive. They don't try to help us.

For example, at the present time the only regulation under which we can be reimbursed for costs incurred covers real estate losses. But even in those cases, they find a way of refusing to reimburse us on technical grounds. It's very disappointing. Nevertheless, we continue to do our work well, to remain motivated, and in the case of those people in leadership positions to train other people and motivate them. That is not always easy. We also have to answer to the supreme commander, that is the local sergeant major.

Some hon. members: Ah, ah!

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Is that what you call him?

MWO Yves Labonté: That's not easy either.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you, Mr. Labonté.

Some hon. members: Hear hear!

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt, and then a small question by Mr. Benoit.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Labonté, you alluded earlier to—I'm not exactly sure how you said it—something along these lines: if you have unhappy people, then they're not doing their jobs as well as they might, if their mind is not on their work. Do you think the current set of problems being faced by the members of the Canadian Forces has affected the operational effectiveness of the forces overall? Just as a corollary to that question as well, how would you characterize the morale of your own unit, the base as a whole, and the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole?

MWO Yves Labonté: As for the operational effect, it's difficult to comment on that. There is definitely an effect, but also I'm very proud of the people in this organization. I feel the soldiers are very professional, and although they face great difficulties in their personal lives, the work always gets done. This is a tradition in the Canadian military that has been carried over for many years. The Canadian soldier especially—and we see that on deployed operations—is very respected and considered very professional by the international community.

So the effect on the operation may be there, but it is my feeling that the Canadian soldier is professional enough that he can overcome that. But it's done at personal expense, and you can't quantify that. But the professionalism overcomes the situation.

Can you repeat the second part of the question?

Mr. David Pratt: The second question was the issue of morale and how you would describe the morale in your own unit, on the base here as a whole, as well as in the forces.

MWO Yves Labonté: I would say the morale is excellent. It's very good. Again, it's the result of teamwork. Sometimes people who are put in harsh conditions tend to stick together, to be united. It's not necessarily because everything is so beautiful, but it's because the adversity tends to pull people together and then the morale is good.

• 2015

In my unit, generally people like to be there, and they feel united. In January 1997 the whole unit came back from a tour in Bosnia. So it's a very united group of people. That's why the morale is high, not necessarily because the world is wonderful and for those reasons. But we are close together and that's where the good feelings come from.

Mr. David Pratt: Yes. I asked the question because one of the things we've heard at other bases is that unit morale is strong but morale in the forces overall is poor. Would you agree or disagree with that statement?

MWO Yves Labonté: Again, at the lowest level, if you stay within the brigade, the morale is high. But what's coming from above is not so satisfying. Again, my feeling is that within the brigade we're dealing with leadership, people in leadership positions who care for what they do. There is a feeling of community. This is felt. Once you leave this level, it seems you tend to deal more with administrators and decisions are cold. This is where the bad feelings may come from.

A couple of times I have seen people who have requested.... Their one-year contract was near the end. On two occasions the people came back from a UN tour. They asked for a one-year extension to sort out their lives. We applied for the people working, sent that to Ottawa, and the reply came back, a cold message, “No”.

I have to tell these people face to face that we will not reclaim them. The person in NDHQ who made the decision went by statistics, looked at a few books and said, “The rules and regulations say no, we can't”. But I have to tell the person to his face. It's not a pleasant situation.

Maybe I don't make enough money to do that kind of work too often.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, David.

Mr. Benoit, a very short question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think twice you said the career managers administer rather than manage. I'm going to post you now to Valcartier as a career manager. How would you do things differently?

MWO Yves Labonté: I don't know if I fit the mould. I would probably last six months, and after that it would be the end.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But how would you do it differently? How would you manage rather than administer?

MWO Yves Labonté: I don't think a person can do it by himself. I have seen very good people in those jobs, very good friends, people I respect a lot, and I don't think they have been able to overcome the situation. I don't feel that if I go there I can work under that situation either, unless the rules change.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So it's the rules they're operating under that is the problem.

MWO Yves Labonté: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

[Translation]

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

MWO Yves Labonté: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Ginette Tremblay, please proceed.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I would like to discuss a few subjects with you. Mr. Labonté talked about transfers. I have been here for one year and a half. I am from the Ottawa region. So I know what losing money means. I've lost $25,000 when I sold my house. It was put up for sale at the last minute. I have a disabled child. In one week, it was very difficult to find a place to live, a school and necessary services.

I had to come and live in the MPQ because I couldn't find a home. Having lost a lot of money, I did not have much left to buy another house. So I understood that it could be very difficult for the family. I lost everything I had invested in my house over five years.

• 2020

I have been a member of the Family Centre for the one and a half year I have been here. As a result of funding cuts, family services are not what they should be. The message being given to families by high ranking officials is not what it should be. Many families who have been on the base for a long time don't even know what the Centre can offer to them. There is no communication. I don't know where the breakdown is, but the information is not being given to the troops. Or there are rumours: lies are being told, as a result of which the Centre is not being shown in its true light.

As regards the rear party, which is another very controversial point, I have seen certain things. Fortunately to me, my husband has not gone elsewhere since I've been on the base. However, when I lived in the Ottawa area, specifically in Gatineau, my husband left twice, for six months each time.

When your husband is a soldier in Ottawa, he leaves alone. There was no family centre near me. There was no rear party. The committee for spouses was just me and me alone. When there were problems, we did what we could to lift up our spirits. No one ever called me to find out if everything was all right. I lost my job. I worked in the hotel sector as a receptionist until midnight, and I couldn't get anyone to look after my small son. Therefore, I had no choice: I had to give up my job.

I had an operation, as did my son, but there was no one to help, and my husband was a long way away. On a large base like this one, these things are important. A lot is done even though there are major shortcomings. But the families of soldiers living outside such a base, for example in Ottawa or Montreal—I am from Montreal and I have seen Longue-Pointe also—, are not helped. Whether you are talking about one woman or 125, the problem is just as serious.

I would like to raise a third point. On the short list of questions you gave us, you asked what the government could do for people in family accommodations. Today, I stayed at home. I didn't do any volunteer work because I had housework to do. I am laughing because there are a lot of people who know what I am talking about. there is a serious water problem on the base. The water you have on the table is not the same as the water we had when I came here. The water has changed since I ??? come into the room, because took out the water I have, perhaps too quickly. One of my neighbours is here with me. There are a lot of people here who live on the base, and I am sure they have the same problems as I.

A number of complaints have been made, but the problem is not being solved. When you live in family accommodation, lobbying does not have the same effect as when you live in a city. I had my own house and I lived in apartment blocs. When you want to lodge a complaint, you contact the owner and the problem had to be solved. If we were civilians, the problem wouldn't drag on as it has done. Things have been dragging on now for several months. I don't know what's going on, because we've not been notified. I have something I'd like to show you.

For anyone who didn't hear what I was saying, this is the water I got at 3:00 p.m. this afternoon, and this is the water you get at 5:00 p.m. to cook the potatoes. Fortunately, it is spring water which I bought myself because I couldn't use the other water.

• 2025

This is my neighbour's water. Some people might be interested in seeing what it is at the bottom. That is the kind of water my son could drink could without me knowing when he goes upstairs to the toilet. And that is the water of my second water. Look at the bottom. I prefer not to know what is in it.

This is my husband's UN sweater, which I washed this morning. It's a very beautiful sweater. This is the sweater I washed at 3:00 p.m. today. It is his. He wasn't very happy when he got home from work. Both sweaters are identical. they were both bought in Israel, but they were not washed in the same load.

Some honourable members: Hear hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much Ginette. I am sure that some questions will have members??? for you, starting with Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Ms. Tremblay, you have a sense of the dramatic and you are right! Ms. Tremblay, how long has that been going on?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: I've been here for a year and a half. At the beginning it wasn't too bad. Now things are getting worse.

I called the family accommodations service. I called today the family accommodations service. I called today because beforehand I wasn't often here during the day. Most of the time, it happens during the day. How long has this been going on? For a very long time.

This summer, we were connected to outside pipes supplying us with drinking water. I saw children turn on the pipes. I saw the pipes. I saw the pipes there and the water coming into our houses. They won't convince me that that water is free of microbes.

I called the Family Housing Service and they told me: “People have been calling us for an hour telling us that the water is not good. I don't understand.” The water is brown.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You say that the problem was already there last summer.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: And the year before?

Sergeant Marc Desfossés (Individual Presentation): You can go back at least to 1991. I arrived here in 1991 and we had the same problems. Therefore, the problem goes back at least that far.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: I know they are carrying out repairs. If they were to tell me that, it wouldn't bother me; we could perhaps make arrangements. The spring water which I purchase I pay for myself. I am currently paying rent. I would also point out here that whenever there is a salary increase, there is also a rent increase. So, we won't talk about that.

I pay my rent. I cannot exert any pressure. I can't say: “I will not pay unless you solve the water problem”, because they take the rent directly from my husband's pay. My son has to have his bath in that. And even if they were to install a filter, I am not sure that my clothes would return to the way they looked before. I will not install a filter, nor will I begin to do my washing in spring water.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Ms. Tremblay, I don't know what the source of the problem is but I know that I am going to find out.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: Thank you.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I am not an expert in water systems and so I cannot tell you what I will do to solve the problem, but I can assure you that I will keep you informed. After today's meeting, please come and see me and give me your telephone number. I will inform you of the answer I receive and you can pass it on for everyone's benefit.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: At least they could tell us. They could issue a notice saying: “On such and such a date, the water will not be drinkable.” Today, when I called the Housing service, they knew but we did not know.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You are quite right. At least, they should make sure people are informed.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: Children are drinking that water, and it is just not right.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I would like to move on to another subject; this one was to be expected.

You say that family services are not adequate, and you mentioned certain things you experienced yourself. What else would you need? For example, if your husband had to leave on a six-month mission. What kind of problems do you have to deal with and what support would you like to have?

• 2030

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: I can answer on the basis of my experience in Ottawa. There are not just missions lasting six months, but also courses which can last as long as eight or nine months. There are all sorts of things. When people leave, they have to be given a clearance. Why is there not one specific office where the individual concerned would have to go to get his or her card signed and ensure that they have the spouses' address and telephone number, so that the latter can be contacted every week by mail or telephone?

I was completely alone and I would have liked someone to tell me that they were thinking about me and ask if everything was all right. I had my own house and I had money problems. When I lost my job, I would have liked to speak with someone. There was a seven-hour time difference between my husband and myself. I couldn't contact him when I wanted to. The telephone service between Canada and Israel is not always good.

I wish there had been a specific place apart from the rear party, but which would have been in contact with it. The rear party should comprise a group of people who have been trained to look after spouses and understand women. The rear guard groups I saw were made up of men. Everyone knows that women experience changes in hormone levels. What can a man understand about that? I don't know.

There are problems specific to women; I am a woman and I understand this. I can tell you that if I had had to talk to a man, sometimes it would not have been easy. I would have like to talk to a woman. Maybe I would also like to talk to a man. But in my case, I'd have liked to talk to anyone.

There should be a system requiring soldiers to report to an office so that someone would know whether their wives are alone, and a call should be made or a form sent every week containing all useful telephone numbers. Some people are reluctant to go to family centres, and I understand that. Many people seem to believe that all we do there is talk. That is not what I have been doing since I've been involved.

An effort has been made to reach out to those people who are afraid to go to family support centres. They hear what is going on around them and it is not always positive. If I'd listened to that, I wouldn't be here. When I came, I was happy. When I began to see how the rear party worked, my reaction was that I would perhaps have been better off alone.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Ms. Tremblay, I would like to ask some other questions, that I will defer to my colleagues. Your evidence was very well presented. I would even say that it was colourful.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. de Savoye.

A very short question, Ms. Tremblay. Do you know from where the base obtain its water supply? Is it from absolute artesian wells?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: I think the water comes directly from the base.

The Chairman: Yes, but does it come from Quebec City? Is it taken from a river?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: It comes from the base and is supplied directly by the base at Valcartier.

An hon. member: It comes from an absolute artesian well.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Actually, my questions have been answered. I just want to say that when I was two years old my mother told me you don't eat yellow snow and you don't drink yellow water.

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

Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you. I'm going to leave the water. I can't deal with it.

You talked about being the mother of a special needs child, a handicapped child. Do we provide—and I say “we” in the broad term—special services for families with handicapped or special needs children?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: I'm lucky because my husband made friends at a nice place, a right place. Usually, no. I've heard a lot of things, but we were lucky. We were able to choose a French base. My son is mentally retarded, so I need a French place. I used to live in Halifax. That's why I moved to Gatineau. After that, when we were posted, we had a choice of the base we wanted to go to, and I chose Valcartier. If I had known about the water I wouldn't have come.

• 2035

But usually, no, because like everybody else I had just five days, and I need psychologists, speech therapists, CLSC; I need everything. I had to find everything beforehand, because I learned about a rumour that my husband was in Israel at that time. One of his friends called me and said he had heard a strong rumour that my husband was going to be posted. By myself I started searching for places, searching for information and things like that. If I had not had those resources I wouldn't have found out until the end of March, when my husband came back from Israel.

So no. When I came here I had five days to find everything I needed. We all have group insurance, and let me tell you the new one is not good. I need a speech therapist for my son. He doesn't talk. He's a sign language user. Because I didn't go to the doctor before I went to my speech therapist—I didn't know—it cost me $100. I needed to go because I needed a report for the school because he needed sign language. The insurance people told me, you didn't go to the doctor, you didn't have a prescription, so you're not allowed.

I said my son is handicapped and he was first diagnosed when he was three years old; he's 10 now and he's not talking; I'm not going there just because I want to. They said it was just too bad, you don't get your refund; and it wasn't refunded to me.

So no, we're not really considered because we have a special needs child.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Although I would like to get back to the water for a second, I'll pass on that.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: You can thank me that you have clear water now.

Mr. David Pratt: I'm just wondering, Mr. Chair, if for our report it might be possible to get some of the pictures that have been taken of the water. I sense from the audience here that the problem with the water seems to be fairly widespread.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: Almost all the PMQs on the bases here have had, or had, a problem with their water for a long time. The schools are on the base too, the family centre is on the base, so everybody around here has the same water. With my son, who needs special attention, when he drinks the water I'm not always there to check it. I'm sure when a lot of the children drink that kind of water.... You wouldn't want your children to drink that. When you wash your clothes, you scrap them, because lots of the time they don't come back.

Mr. David Pratt: Are you aware of any instances of illness as a result of drinking the water?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: Maybe, yes. We have friends who are very sick, and maybe it's the water. But we cannot prove it.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, perhaps the committee should give some consideration to bringing the little bottle back to Ottawa for some independent testing.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt, I'm sure if we do take it back to Ottawa and have it analysed the result will come back saying that our mare is pregnant.

[Translation]

Ms. Tremblay, do you know that name of the person responsible for the housing service?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: I have no idea.

The Chairman: I'll be frank with you. That cannot continue.

• 2040

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: If there is no answer when you call the housing services here, you dial the 1-800 number in Ottawa.

A witness: Ms. Savard is one of the people in charge.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: She is one of the people who answers when we call. I was told today that the water was drinkable.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, thank you for your presentation. I would urge you to look for the right bottle; you will need it.

Mr. Christian Simard.

Corporal Christian Simard (Individual Presentation): Good evening, committee members. I would like to support the comments of those witnesses who appeared before me.

Since we are talking about transfers, I would like to explain to you what happened to me as recently as last weekend. My wife and myself have been going through a somewhat stressful period because we are renewing our mortgage.

Current mortgage rates are low and therefore we would like to take out a long-term mortgage. That is not a problem, and we would like to sign for a five-year renewal period. But I learned something last week: if I were to be transferred within one year, I wouldn't have to reimburse three month's interest through the bank but rather the differential rate. From the quick calculations I did on my computer, I worked out that would mean $2000 in penalty payments. And, gentlemen, the Canadian Forces do not reimburse that amount.

During the weekend we were wondering: do we sign for one year, three years or five years? If we renew for one year and I am not transferred, we will still be penalized if interest rates climb to 8, 9 or 10% next year. I don't know what to do. I don't have a crystal ball. There's no way of knowing what will happen. But we will still lose money.

As was pointed out earlier, we often lose a lot of money when we purchase a home. In most cases, that is the largest investment we will make. We try to negotiate our mortgage so that it will be reimbursed in full when we leave the Forces. But it is not easy in these situations. I would only have to pay $2,000 because mine is a small mortgage. I've spoken with people who pay penalties up to $4,000, which is an enormous amount of money for people earning what we earn. That at least should be reviewed.

The Canadian Forces can reimburse penalty payments of up to six months. In many cases, such penalties are more expensive for the Forces than the differential rate would be, something they refuse to pay. In some cases, people make arrangements with the bank manager, because you're really playing with words here, but they might get caught because this does constitute fraud.

One other point: wage increases, as small as they are at the present time. Instead of being given on a percentage basis, wage increases should be based on a fixed rate. We were given a small increase of 0.6%, and shortly before that a small increase of 2.2%. For a private or corporal, who are the lowest paid at the moment, a 2.2% increase does not mean much. However, for a master warrant officer or chief warrant officer, 2.2% increases start to be quite attractive. Percentage-based increases simply make the wage disparity between ranks even bigger. A number of civilian companies have now resolved that problem by implementing a fixed rate and giving, for example, a $200 increase to everyone.

• 2045

My family and I are not afraid of being transferred; it doesn't bother us to be transferred anywhere in Canada or abroad. However, as a corporal and father of two children whose wife does not work, I am afraid of having to line up at the welfare office in Vancouver because I do not earn enough to find housing there.

Wages should be adjusted according to the region. I would not have any problem if I were to be transferred to Bagotville tomorrow morning. However, if they decided to transfer me to Ottawa or Vancouver, I would be better off leaving the army because I refuse to let my children live in that kind of poverty. It's not that I don't like Vancouver, on the contrary, I went there before the holidays on a military assignment and I love Vancouver. However, I am not prepared to go and starve to death there.

People have talked about transfers and claims. Policies should be clearer. They vary from base to base. When we leave one base we are told that we are entitled to certain things, but when we arrive at another base we are told the opposite and asked who could have given us that information. We are told that it is an Air Force base, and the policy is not the same. It is very frustrating.

Policies should be not only clear, but more standardized for everyone. In terms of clarity, there is a serious problem: lack of communication. Policies are often interpreted differently because they are not clear. Everyone interprets them in his or her own way. It would be interesting to take a book used at Valcartier and compare it with the same book used in all other administrative offices. First, these books are seldom up to date, and in very few cases are the same ones used. I find that totally unacceptable.

Even for those of us working in administration, there is a major communication problem. Information of all kinds is being communicated. There are various messages and TRPOLs. You have to check whether particular information has been received or updated. I would like there to be clear policies published and out of date manuals discarded. Publish the relevant manuals, which should be clearly written, and the same for everyone.

Since I am still young, I have not really had anything to do with the career managers who were mentioned earlier. However, I do think there is a problem, because too many personal feelings come into play in our dealings with our bosses. I am not talking just about career managers, but about the person in whom we confide a personal problem, who, rather than being receptive, may notice that the individual he or she is speaking to is just a lowly corporal. The reaction may be to wonder who these individuals think they are to ask for such a thing. However, if a guy takes the trouble to go to see his superior and to talk to him about something, that means the issue is important to him. As a superior, the boss may not agree, but he does not have to say that right away. He may make a note of the problem, think about it for a while and talk about it with a number of others to see what they think. He should not make an opinion on his own judgement alone and tell his subordinate to go back where he came from and not bother him with such nonsense. People with problems don't see them as nonsense.

This type of behaviour shows a lack of professionalism. We see this at all levels. Earlier, we were talking about career managers, and I think that sometimes the same problem occurs. In my opinion, a single individual should not be making the decisions all the time. There should be a consultation process involving three or four people on personal matters. But we don't always have the resources we need.

• 2050

However, things are starting to change, and one of the things we now have are procedures in cases of harassment. We may have more resources, but they are still inadequate. To whom can we turn if our immediate supervisor thinks our request is ridiculous? Can we just keep quiet and live with our frustration, although I'm not sure that this situation ensures that we will be as effective on the job as we should be.

There's another question that troubles military personnel of my generation: we are the people who felt the effects of all the budget cuts. Sometimes I tease the older members who tell us that we young people are in the army, but that the army does nothing anymore, and so on. My response is that they got all the largest salary increases, and the long service contracts lasting 25, 30 and 35 years. That is no longer the case: the period is now 20 years. These servicemen also benefitted from the FRP and all the other bonuses. They got all the goodies before they left, and good for them.

I worry when I think that after 20 years of service, I could end up with nothing, with a pension too small to live on. You have to realize that when I complete my 20 years of service, my older daughter will be 12 or 13, and there is the younger one as well. She will just be starting high school, and, if I can afford it, I intend to send her to a private school, provided I am still getting a salary and working in the Armed Forces. In the current economic context, it is difficult to start another career at age 40. I would like some guarantee that I will be able to stay on. I like the army, despite some shortcomings here and there. I would not want to do anything else. I want to stay longer.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Simard. Your comments were very clear. There are no question.

Warrant Officer Richard Gosselin.

Warrant Officer Richard Gosselin (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm going to tell you about a problem I experienced, just as many of the previous witnesses have.

I will be talking about three programs in the Armed Forces for people who are transferred. They do not always prove to be good for everyone. Under the Guaranteed Home Sale Program, GHSP, the appraisers come to your home and assess its value. For example, if your house is assessed at $84,000, they offer you $76,000.

Under the HEAP Program, if the real estate market in your region drops by 10%, you're entitled to 90% of the money you lose.

The third program is for people with two residences, and provides $600 a month for 12 months, or $7,200 a year.

I will describe the problem I had. In the summer of 1993, I was transferred from Valcartier to Sherbrooke with the militia. I went alone, since I had been unable to sell my house in Val-Bélair, and I lived there alone for 15 months. I finally managed to sell my house. We did not have too much difficulty and we were able to adapt to the situation. My spouse and my two children came to join me in Sherbrooke, where we bought a house. In the summer of 1996, since I was part of the 3rd battalion that was arriving here in Valcartier, I was transferred again.

In April, 1996, when I found out that I would be transferred, Treasury Board introduced a pilot project called the GHSP. Although it was implemented in April, we only learned about it on May 13. So that gives you some idea of how our transfers work. We get our message in March and we have to start making decisions about selling our house and possibly moving into married quarters here, depending on what the Armed Forces can offer us. The purpose of the program was to remove some of the anxiety experienced by military personnel.

• 2055

Once I heard about it, I submitted an application under the GHSP Program. The appraisers came to my home in Sherbrooke. As I mentioned, I had paid $84,000 for my house. I was offered $76,000; so I was losing $8,000. I found that that was unreasonable, and my wife and I decided to try to sell the house ourselves in order to minimize our losses.

Before I refused the Armed Forces offer, I tried to get another program, the HEAP, which I eventually decided not to use. Then, I applied for married quarters, which I obtained. My family and I, therefore, moved into the married quarters. As I mentioned before, I was separated from my wife and children for 15 months, and we did not want to live separately any longer.

When I got here, I signed up for the dual residence program. However, since I had turned down the GHSP, I was penalized, and got only 9 months of compensation, rather than 12. That means that rather than getting $7,200 a year for having two residences, I got only $5,400. All of this further increased our anxiety.

The next thing that happened was that I was sent to Haiti. I left on April 1 and I sold my house, but I lost $8,500 on it. I lost more than I should have. If the Forces had given me the $8,500 under the HEAP Program, there would have been no problem. Under the Forces' initial offer, I lost $8,000, but with the $7,200 that they would have given me—since they would have covered 90% of my loss—I would not have lost that much money.

So this gives you some idea that there is definitely room for some improvement.

Let me give you another example. There were three of us in my battalion who lost a total of $29,000. I knocked on a lot of doors, I sent out many letters, and everyone told me that I was right and that there was no problem. However, during my investigation, I discovered a very lucky member of the Forces who lost $60,000, but who had benefitted from the HEAP Program and got $54,000 back. But the three of us with our total loss of $29,000 could not take advantage of the same program.

Even if this individual was transferred for operational reasons or for the good of the service, I think that I am just as much of a serviceman and I'm entitled to the same benefits. Personally, I think that the only solution would be to abolish the HEAP. We should not have to ask for compensation for a 10% drop in real estate market; we should get it automatically. Moreover, people definitely feel anxious and the messages that were sent out to reduce our anxiety actually had the opposite effect.

The military provided $7,200 because of the two residences. I think this too should be rethought, because the two programs are quite similar. I think the Armed Forces would save money and our anxiety would be reduced. We should remember that some people are transferred at the end of their careers, and they do not want to sell their home. They leave their family behind. It is a question of choice. I therefore think that we have to be a little more flexible and modify these programs to make them more useful to military personnel.

Federal public servants have programs that are much better than ours, and I think we should have the same programs. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Gosselin. You are not the only person who experienced difficulties with these programs. As the Member of Parliament for this riding, I have heard many complaints, not just from military personnel, but also from brokers with real estate problems, such as Royal Lepage.

• 2100

I think this is something the committee will be focussing on. I am already interested in the problem. Thank you very much for your testimony.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Master Warrant Officer Paul Leblanc (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. This morning and this afternoon, members of the military, generals and staff from various units have described problems on military bases and in the Armed Forces in general.

I am well aware that there are some major problems and that you are looking for solutions to them. You have already heard many stories this evening, and I won't give you all the details of my problems. However, I am one of those who lost $50,000 on a house, because unfortunately, I sold it 15 days before the program came into effect. However, that is water under the bridge.

As far as salaries go, there are bonuses in the military. All the ranks—corporal, master corporal, sergeant and chief warrant officer—have incentives. Someone mentioned a little earlier that there wouldn't be any promotions unless a bus full of majors fell off a cliff this morning.

I have 24 years of service myself, and I have been everywhere. I have had five tours of duty with the UN Forces. I saw the incentives go by; they have been frozen. Salary increases have been stopped to. I didn't get any of that.

Now we are going to have career corporals, career master warrant officers, majors, career captains, and so on. We have technicians, people who are very competent in their trade. I think they too should be able to benefit from incentives.

When I joined the Armed Forces 25 years ago, we heard that this would be reviewed. It might be time to do that now, to review the incentives. Offer me 10 bonuses as a master warrant officer, and I will go wherever I am needed. I will take part in all the UN missions. But after accepting four bonuses, I would like to get a promotion, because that is what I need in order to support my family. Some thought should be given to this.

I know very well there is no money. There's no point in deceiving ourselves: you have no money to give us. But I'm sure you could find some way to enable us to take advantage of certain incentives in a progressive manner.

We need to find some way of doing this, and it may not be helpful to immediately put an amount of $1.4 billion into the budget. The effect of the incentives program will be to keep people in the various ranks for 10, 12, 13 or 14 years.

A captain with his eighth premium earns more than a chief warrant officer with his four premiums. In order to earn a salary equal to that of the chief warrant officer with his four premiums, I would have to have for 28 or 29 years' service. Clearly, we should be looking at all the options for paying soldiers better if we want to keep them.

One possibility is to increase the incentives for each rank in order to keep people in the same rank a little longer, since there is no hope for any promotion. You will probably be cutting back the armed forces personnel once again. When I joined the army, there were 100,000 people in the military, and as the general told you, now the total is only 60,000. Furthermore, our budget is being reduced. Unfortunately, you gave us equipment, like the LAV-25s, which cost 40% more to use than the vehicles we have at the moment. The general told you that the budget between now and the year 2000 will have to be cut by 40%. Where will we find the money we need?

Consequently, I think we have to forget about incentives and promotions, even though incentives would be one way of dealing with the salary problem. We are not asking for a salary increase, we just want to keep up with increases in the cost of living.

In the last 15 or 16 years, the cost of living has gone up about 38%. Salaries and incentives—and they too were cut at one point—increased by 17%. That means that we're just not keeping up.

• 2105

Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that the presence of the army is good for the local economy. Val-Bélair is doing well economically because the army is there. The same goes for Shannon and Sainte-Catherine. So it might be a good idea to keep our salaries at a decent level.

In addition, I can tell you that it is not easy for military personnel involved in UN missions when they compare their situation to that of a member of the RCMP posted to the same place. I can tell you that I have experienced this myself. In 1993 I was in Bosnia; in 1995 I was in Croatia and I'm just back from Haiti. The guy from the RCMP, from the Quebec police force, who was in Srebrenica with me, when I was removing babies who had been mailed to doors, was making $30,000 tax free. At the same time, I was making barely $1,100 a month, for six months. I had to pay out of my own pocket to come home to see my family. It took me six and a half days to get from Srebrenica to my home. That was taken out of my leave.

There is a section in Ottawa that looks after the well-being of military personnel and is run by a retired major and three or four other people who work for him. He looks after part of our needs, part of the money we are given to come home to see our families. There is not enough staff to look after our travel arrangements. There were 2,200 or 2,500 soldiers from the base in Valcartier who were deployed. This major had to look after all Canadian military personnel who are deployed throughout the world. So there simply is not enough staff. We have to find some solutions to these problems.

There is no doubt that we are short of money. There's no doubt that we are short-staffed. There is no doubt, as I said before, that we end up paying for things out of our own pocket.

So if you want to play with the big boys, you may have to pay these guys, or give them the tools they require. We know what the major needs, because we are in the field. We can help him, but it's going to cost you a little money.

When I was in Bosnia, I had 10 minutes a week to telephone my wife, and my turn came at three in the morning, because I am a sergeant major and my men had their turn before me. I think we could have had enough telephones so that everyone could call at least once a day. The same happened in Croatia and Haiti as well.

If you want to provide an allowance or help out the soldier without it costing anything, perhaps during deployments that last six months or one year, the soldier's earnings could be tax-free. Soldiers could be told: This year you won't be paying any income tax, because you went off to serve your country.

Some hon. members: Great!

MWO Paul Leblanc: I am in the infantry and I am not an accountant, but I think that could be done. That would help the family to pay for child care, to pay for the support the wife needs when her husband is away. We should not kid ourselves: husbands are away for almost nine months of the year because of our training. We go to train in Gagetown with my battalion that came from Montreal to train here, we go to Quebec city for four months, and then we are deployed.

I think this would be a solution that would not cost the government anything. On the one hand, it would help us out, and on the other, we would not have to put 1.4 billion dollars back into the budget.

A woman spoke earlier about family support. I do not know as much about this as Captain Rodrigue, but I do know some ways of managing stress to help soldiers in crisis situations, for example when they walk on mines or have to collect bodies. I have seen Captain Rodrigue coming and going on three UN missions. She is the same person at the beginning and the end of the mission. Unfortunately, all she does is put out fires. That is all she does, because she doesn't have the resources she needs to do anything more. Unfortunately, she is not given the resources she needs to really help the troops.

• 2110

The idea behind this family support service is to provide assistance for our families. I couldn't agree more with what you said. We need a family support service on the base to help all families. When someone is deployed in my unit, the service battalion or the rearparty of the service battalion looks after that individual. I'm just giving this one example, but there are others.

Everyone could be served by the base, but in order to do that, you would have to give the commanding general the resources he needs. You'd have to give him more staff to do the job, to create a unit, a platoon or a company, or however many people he needed. That may mean that the major units would have to be increased by about 10 people. This too would create some jobs. We're prepared to help each other out, but if we don't have the tools we need, there is nothing we can do.

I would now like to talk about allowances or compensation. Many people in the Armed Forces have very demanding physical jobs, for example those in the Airborne Regiment, who do parachute-jumping. After 20 years, all those guys have had it. Their backs and their knees are ruined, unfortunately. As Mr. Simard said, the military hardly has the time of day for them after 20 years. There is nothing for those guys. There's nothing after 20 years. I think this is a serious problem and we are going to have to think about it.

Guys like that will not want to work for you for the last five years of their career, because they're almost at the end, and this will not add anything to their curriculum vitae. We need other programs to help out people in this situation, because it is very serious.

I would like to make one final point. When we come back from UN missions and from other assignments, the serious problems, such as divorces or separations, happen three, four, five or six months later. That too is a very serious problem.

I recently heard someone on television saying that this type of problem happened as much to military personnel as to civilians. I can tell you that when I was in Bosnia, there were 77 separations and divorces in the second battalion. When I came back from Croatia, the number was up to 87. I don't know how many there are at the moment in my battalion heading for Haiti, but I do know that there are quite a few, and I'm sure the number will increase by the summer. All members are afraid to go to see their superiors to talk to them about their problems, because they don't know what might happen to their career. We think we must deal with these problems.

If we want our soldiers to give their lives for their country, we have to show them some respect. Unfortunately, at the moment, many members of the Canadian Armed Forces who leave for UN missions or are deployed elsewhere have no confidence in our hierarchy. This all means that we are against the system, that we start to lose our loyalty toward the system. This is unacceptable if we are supposed to be able to act in an operational context, because someone could die there!

These are very important points. I have tried to suggest some solutions to the problems, but I can tell you that we have a number of solutions, because we have a number of problems. To go back to what Warrant Officer Gosselin said about houses, I would like to point out that in other parts of the federal government, people who work for the same government as me buy their house, and that is the end of it. I am prepared to give my life for you, and you are not prepared to do the same for me as you do for members of the RCMP, for ministers or politicians. And I'm ready to die for you! Please help us out! Thank you very much.

• 2115

The Chairman: You have a brief question, Mr. de Savoye.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Please don't die right away! Your testimony was very eloquent and dynamic. Today, the members of the committee had an opportunity to meet with many members of the military who told us similar stories. We were in a group, but the discussion was just as personal as the comments you just presented.

It is important for us to hear testimony of this type, because the base commanding officer and General Forand who, naturally, are more familiar with the broad outlines of the problems, presented briefs that showed they saw the problems in exactly the same way as you.

In order for us to have a proper understanding of your situation, we need to know how you live with these problems. So I would like to thank you for speaking to us in such a straight-forward, natural way. Thank you.

MWO Paul Leblanc: Thank you, sir.

Corporal Sébastian Couture (Individual Presentation):

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

The Chairman: Could you please tell us who you are, sir?

Cpl Sébastian Couture: I am Corporal Couture, a militia man. Our people really put themselves out in Croatia, you know. In 1995, I went to Croatia as an engineer. At that time, our task was difficult; we had to build 25 observation posts to protect a demilitarized zone. I am not that strong physically; I did not get the training that members of the regular army have every day. I went over there and I got wounded. I got a paper authorizing my return that said I had been wounded.

When I came back to Canada, my military file got lost for five or six months. After it showed up again in a miraculous way, in my own unit, an investigation was undertaken. It is still underway. This was back in 1995. We are now in 1998 and my case has not yet been settled. I got an answer back from Ottawa saying that the evidence was just not there. Well, I have a paper here saying that on August 23, 1995 I underwent a medical examination. And it says clearly on that piece of paper, that, on palpation, I had pain in the left lateral lumbar area.

Then, as things were dragging out, I made a claim as a civilian. I had an ultrasound which revealed that I had a left central lateral discal herniated disk between L4 and L5. A broken back after 20 years in the army is one thing. However, this can also happen after six years of service. What I find deplorable is that regulars, who may not have that much service or who may just be marginally handicapped, do get something whereas we, the militia men, get absolutely nothing.

We rely on the image of the regular army. This is somewhat of an ideal for us. We figure they represent the norm. However, if members of the regular army do not get anything, how would we get anything?

What I would like to stress also is that you should not only take care of regular army members, but also of militia men.

The Chairman: One moment, I believe that Mr. de Savoye has a brief question.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It is a comment rather than a question. I would first like to thank you for your testimony, which sheds light on an additional problem, that of reservists. I know that in the United States, reservists enjoy a considerable amount of security. Here, security is clearly non-existent. If indeed we do need reservists, I believe that it would be reasonable to provide them adequate security.

That being said, with regard to the issue which concerns you more specifically, perhaps you could discuss it with me directly after this meeting. We would then be in a position to see if we can move things along one way or another. I have no knowledge of your case as such, therefore we should discuss it and I am open to that.

Cpl Sébastian Couture: Excellent, thank you.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is now 9:20, and I suggest we take a ten-minute break.

• 2120

• 2139

The Chairman: I would now ask Ms. Micheline Laurencelle to make her presentation.

Ms. Micheline Laurencelle (Individual Presentation): Good evening. My name is Micheline Laurencelle. I am a volunteer with the Valcartier Family Centre. I am very much involved. I have now been at CFB Valcartier for two years and I could tell you quite a number of horror stories concerning the PMQ, some possibly not as eloquent as others, given that I have not brought examples as such. However, I do have one which has to do with the fact that my water heater blew up in the middle of the night.

When a water heater blows, it's like a bomb going off. The alarm systems go off. You don't know where the problem is exactly. There is a general state of panic. You then look for the PMQ number, which is a 1-800 number. The lady answers in Ottawa and asks you: "CFB Valcartier, where is that?" Right there and then, you fall off your chair. For me, it was sheer disbelief. She asked me what was the city closest to Valcartier.

• 2140

This is a true story. I complained, and the person answering stuttered: “What do you mean, what city is near CFB Valcartier? I know there is a base in Quebec City.” No kidding. This is what happened to me.

Finally, I had to call 911 myself to gain some sense of security concerning that water heater, given that we are not allowed to repair anything. And we are not reimbursed. We have to wait for them to come and do the repairs. The problem is that they keep on passing the buck. You phone one number and, of course, it's not their responsibility. You phone another one, and it's not their shift. It has no end. At one point, you have to ask your husband to call.

At that point, things start improving a bit. They call you back to tell you that your wife is in a state of hysteria, that she has complained because the water has a yellow colour or because windows are falling off. Last year, we had snow problems which we do not have this year. Now, I cannot climb up on a roof. I have three kids and our housing units are all in a row, one up against the other. So the person asked me how many inches of snow I had on my roof. I then asked how many inches it took before they came. The person gave me a number, so I said I had one inch more than that. This is also a true story.

But, I am here for another reason. I am involved with the Training and Orientation to Reintegrate the Work Force, a program which was launched last month. That's fine and dandy. Human Resources Development Canada has given a grant to the Valcartier Family Centre to offer employment assistance to spouses of members of the military.

The grant must be used first and foremost for spouses who receive employment assistance at the present time or who have been receiving that assistance during the last five years. However, this is not the case for a good proportion of spouses here in Valcartier. We have women who have not worked over the last three or four years. In many cases, they have had two or three babies and have not worked during the last five years. In many cases, they have been transferred. This must also be taken into account.

Since they are not eligible for the program, the grant is of no great use to them at the present time, because it goes once again to people who already have the privilege of benefitting from SPRINT or from some other government services.

But that is not the only thing. This program is there to help people go back to work through continuous training or new training opportunities. However, the problem with military spouses is that they always find work in the services sector, in restaurants and retail businesses, since that is what is most easy.

How can we benefit from quality assistance if we are not seen as a priority by those who provide us with funding, especially given that this is a program offered to Valcartier's spouses? I feel that I am a part of no minority whatsoever, visible or not. I am simply a military spouse, and that just does not fit in anywhere in the system.

An hon. member: We are dependents.

Ms. Micheline Laurencelle: We are dependents. Yes, we do have a title. That is our official title in the army. The solution would be that they provide us with grants, but that these be made accessible and given as a priority to military spouses who want training to better their lot in life. I have been living the military life with my husband for 16 years. He will be retiring in four years. If he cannot retrain, I will have to do it. I am not the only one in this situation. There are many more.

I would now like to speak about the daycare in the Family Centre. It must be subsidized, because the hourly rate is too high. The rates which are in force now are discouraging users. They are too high and people are simply not interested in having their children there. In the end, the service may simply cease to exist because it is managed by the army. In an administrative sense, it is not profitable.

One other thing which is sort of odd: we have no access to the $5 a day daycare which is supposed to open. That daycare facility is on federal land and under army management and we do not have a right to that service. Could you please explain that to me, because I do not understand?

In view of the level of family incomes in the forces, we need this service; it is of the utmost importance for us; however, there are not enough spaces. There are only 51 available spaces at Valcartier while we have 900 family housing units. On the average, there is one child per housing unit and there are only 51 available spaces in day care. It's not hard to figure it out.

• 2145

Recently, three members had to go to Montreal at the same time. Eight spaces are not enough. In my own case, the problem lasted nearly a month. With only eight available places, there has to be a waiting list for those who might need a space two weeks later. If you have to take your second child to the doctor... eight spaces are not enough.

That is why we came to the conclusion that day care service should be provided every time there is a deployment. My husband was on course for nearly nine months. When the absence is for under one year, the wife and family do not follow the spouse. But this is still nine months. It is not a United Nations mission. It is not glamorous, but you spend nine months by yourself waiting for your husband to come back.

It would be good to have day care service where the family faced with a deployment, even a short one, would have the priority. It is not because the services don't want to provide this day care that we don't have it. They can't do it. They have neither the approval nor the authority to do it because they come under the administration committee, which is Army.

In addition, day care hours are based on working hours in the military. Generally speaking, day care is open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. When her husband is away for two months, the wife has to come and get the child. If she works downtown, she can't finish work at 5:00 o'clock and be there at 5:00 o'clock, especially if she works in a store, in which case she won't finish at 4:30, but at 7, 8 or 9 o'clock.

Let's say that you finish at 4:30. The day care charges $5 for each 15-minute period after 5 o'clock. It costs just about the minimum wage if you are 15 minutes late. It is something else for which a subsidy might pay. It would be fairer. The day care should at least remain open until 6 o'clock since most other day care centres are open until 6.

As I said, since we are not entitled to the $5 spaces, the people have to use the day care centres in Val-Bélair and the area, but this penalizes those who do not have two cars. To my knowledge, most families here do not have two cars and they do not all have ??? two minutes away. In my case, I have to travel for two and a half hours to see my family. I can't count on my relatives. This is why the family centre is vital. When the day care closes at 6 o'clock, you have time to go and get the others and come back. These are all little things that make life miserable when your husband is away for two months or more.

Of course, there are always the neighbours, but with all the good will in the world, the neighbour has to take care of her own children. If she has to take mine too, it becomes exhausting. You have to run a marathon every time there is a deployment.

Those are the points I really wanted to make and I am not even talking about the school. Last year, I was on the parents' committee and the principal explained that there was a turnover of at least 30% every year in each classroom because of deployments and moves. This can be quite disturbing for a child.

I know that this has been said already, but I would like to say that all of those things are related to the fact that there are too many deployments.

I won't even mention shovelling the driveway or cutting the grass. We can always call the Family Centre to get names of people, but these are people from the base who are trying to help us out. They get burned out after a few months. The ice storm is the best example of this. And then, with the Iraq situation that we are caught up in, I don't feel too comfortable.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Laurencelle, I believe Mr. Pierre de Savoye has a question.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: It's not really a question. You mentioned some problems, especially with respect to the daycare centre, of which I have already been made aware.

I had the opportunity of speaking with the president of your organization, Ms. Dubreuil. She is the one who told me that there seems to be a problem with lawyers from Quebec city and those from Ottawa. Whenever lawyers get involved in problems like those, things tend to drag on because they are paid by the hour. So, we'll try to break that circle and find a way out of this mess.

• 2150

I have made a commitment to Ms. Dubreuil to familiarize myself with the issue and speak to Raymond Brouillet, the MPP who represents your riding, the riding of Chauveau, at the National Assembly. Since he and I are on excellent terms, I think that we'll be able to find the solution so that the daycare centre can be subsidized.

Now, for the rest, the hours, and so on, that obviously would depend on the internal organization of the daycare centre, but we will at least do what has to be done.

Ms. Micheline Laurencelle: I have a question for you: will you be running for the election on that issue?

An hon. member: For the election, because we don't know yet whether or not he is going to run.

Ms. Micheline Laurencelle: Because I would vote for you.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: No, I will not be running for re-election on that issue because, you see, we have just been elected and you wouldn't want to wait four years.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: In any case, Micheline has said that we could find ourselves in a situation of dependency. I don't like that word, but it's true that we are dependent. Last year, I was forced out of my home because the ceiling was cracking and the walls were caving in. When you call to report a problem like that and you mention that your husband is away, that he's off on training in Borden, you're asked how it is that you didn't notice before, what your husband's name is, etc. What does my husband's name have to do with any of that? Are we dependents? No? But yes, we are, because if we don't give our husband's name, we don't get any service. That is something else I can't understand.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I was tempted to answer that by saying that I have never been for dependency; I tend to be more for independence.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madam, are there any other questions? Ms. Monique Éthier.

Ms. Monique Éthier (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I am a volunteer with the Family Centre here. I am mainly involved with the Carrousel program. So, I want to tell you about something that is of great concern to me, the living conditions of women.

It's a fact that being a military wife is a full-time career. Trying to work outside the home is quite complicated when you have children and your husband is away, as in my case, when my husband was sent off on three UN missions in the space of four and a half years. When you also add the courses, the training exercises and so on, in those four and a half years, he probably spent two of them at home. I feel that what we are doing is really a full-time job.

There are many things that could perhaps be improved when our husbands are away. This has already been mentioned: increasing and improving facilities for family members to communicate with the husbands when they are away. It will come as no surprise to you to hear that a ten-minute call per week isn't very much when you have two little ones who also want to speak to their father. They each speak to him for three or four minutes, which leaves the mother about a minute or a minute and a half to give him a run-down of what's been happening before you're cut off. You don't even have time to finish your sentence, to say good bye, see you next week, I love you, or I miss you, you're cut off and you have to wait till the following week.

That is hard to accept because communication is an essential ingredient in the success of your life as a couple. Anyone can tell you as much. For us, however, communication is sometimes made impossible.

There is also another issue, that of the rearguard. It's complicated. It should be the same on all the bases. As someone said earlier, there should be a unit or a company, whatever they decide, of people to serve the family. We are there serving our country by staying behind, always ready to support our husbands. Moreover, the services that are provided should be the same for all, they should be provided equitably to all personnel, without regard to the husband's rank.

Take for example the woman whose husband is just a corporal. If she is pregnant and there are three feet of snow in her driveway, she might be more in need of help than the major's wife who has no children. The major's wife would also have three feet of snow in her driveway, but, surely, the corporal's wife is in more urgent need of having her driveway shovelled. Moreover, they don't have the same salaries to pay those costs.

As for information that is given to families when the husband is away, it is non-existent. There is none, it's as simple as that! You try and find out when the plane that will bring your husband back is scheduled to arrive and you have to call the 1-800 number in Ottawa, you can't ask the rearguard here; they can't tell you. I know, because it has happened that I was the one to tell the rearguard when the planes were scheduled to arrive.

I also have another point. The Family Centre is of great help to us, thanks to the Carrousel program that was mentioned. They will help you to prepare emotionally, to keep your spirits up and to cope while your husband is away.

• 2155

For about a month and a half before and a month and a half after the six months, or rather the nine-month posting, the first thing you're told is always—it's a bit funny, a bit ironic—that you shouldn't try being a superwoman. Why is that? Because today, in order to have a decent living standard, both spouses must work. No one in the military is living handsomely anymore. So, it's fairly difficult to not try being superwoman when you have two kids and the car breaks down or the plumbing goes while your husband is away.

Looking after the kids, giving them the additional support they obviously should require—because they need more attention when their father is away—taking them to gym class or soccer practice, looking after the housework, taking the car in for repairs, calling someone to fix the water heater, all of that works out to a fairly tall order. However, one person can only do what one person can do. That is why I would say that being a military spouse is a full-time job, and women should not have to work outside the home when they have very small children. Consideration should perhaps be given to increasing salaries accordingly. I know it's a lot to ask today, but in any case, it's worth a try.

If I may express a thought in passing: our lives, as spouses of soldiers, is determined by the constraints of life in the Canadian Armed Forces. On the weekends, someone compared the life of military spouses to the life of Émilie Bordeleau in Les filles de Caleb. At first, I found that quite funny but having thought about it, I find that it is quite true. We just have to follow along. We have nothing to say about it because it would seem that if we spoke too loudly, that could harm our husband's career. When we try to obtain services, we must give the name, the rank, the unit and the entire pedigree of our husband. We are truly...

An hon. member:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Ms. Monique Éthier: That is true even at the clinic. It is true everywhere. We are truly dependent on our husbands. Our living conditions are those of the 1930s. Unfortunately, this is 1998.

Another subject was discussed at length. I have some numbers here. Members of the forces always say that they are paid 24 hours a day. That's not bad! My husband, who is a sergeant after 18 years in the army, therefore earns $4.68 an hour. You must know that the minimum wage in Quebec in $6.85. After ten years, a corporal earns $4.05 an hour. He would live just as well if he went and settled in Biafra.

In conclusion, I would like to read you a thought which a friend jotted down while her husband was away a mission because this thought describes what our lives are like very well.

The main source of stress for the mother is the daily grind because we have to deal with everything whether it be housework, repairs for the car or the children's needs.

Of course, the car would need an oil change even if the spouse were in town. The children would scratch their knees nonetheless. But the fact of not being able to count on another adult at night or on weekends to share the load would wear down any parent no matter how strong. When parents are worn out, their endurance is lessened.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: You spoke of the rear guard. Since we do not all know the terms, I would like you to explain it to me.

Ms. Monique Éthier: It is difficult to define. It means a group of soldiers who stay behind to help the families when there are massive deployments such as is the case with United Nations missions.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Soldiers remain here to help the families left behind.

Ms. Monique Éthier: Who stay behind.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: How do they help you? How are they supposed to help you?

Ms. Monique Éthier: Committees made up of spouses organize outside visits. They are there to help women in case of emergencies. I am trying to find examples. They might remove the snow from roofs when there has been a heavy snowfall. When a woman breaks a leg, they will transport her to the hospital.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Fine.

Corporal Pierre Villeneuve (Individual Presentation): The rear guard's first duty is to help those who are ill.

• 2200

They help people who are ill and are unable to participate in a United Nations mission or take part in a deployment such as the one in Montreal. They are unwell. How would you expect them to help a person who is ill? They might have a broken arm or a broken leg. Will they go and try to help a person with a broken leg to stand?

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: What the gentleman is trying to say is that, unfortunately, women must always be very self-reliant.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I understand now what you meant by rear guard.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: How can someone try to put themselves in our shoes when the military personnel are the ones who make up the rear guards. I am not against that but how can they put themselves in our shoes? They do not know what life is like for us. My husband has never had to be alone with our son for six solid months.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: I would like to add one thing. I wouldn't want you to think that all those who stay behind are disabled. This is what you seem to think, Mr. Venne, when you say that those in the rear party cannot provide a service. Many stay behind whatever the deployment is, whether it is a U.N. posting or something else and they can do any job. They will try to provide as must assistance as they can to those who need it.

A priority is set by each rear party commanding officer. Each case is assessed on its merits. So you shouldn't say only disabled people are there. Some can work and some can't.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you for this clarification. You referred to UN postings. I was told these were voluntary, is that so?

Ms. Monique Éthier: Absolutely not. For a guy not to be sent on a UN posting, he must go through a social worker and his wife's physician, if it is for a medical reason. Sometimes they will even try to look into the wife's medical record. It is not on a voluntary basis. Don't believe that. Even if the wife says no, the guy may still go. Even if the wife is pregnant and close to giving birth, the guy still goes.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: When I say voluntary, I say for the military man or woman.

Ms. Monique Éthier: No.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: I would like to add something else. We're talking operational requirements here. There are often people who have been on two postings and have no interest in going on another one, whatever the reason. Because of operational requirements, however, they have to go. Even if volunteers are available and willing, the individual will have to go because of operational requirements. He or she has no choice: they must go.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Very well. Thank you, that's all.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Captain Lessard.

Captain Robin Lessard (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I would like to raise two issues. The first deals with the field operations allowance. We're just back from Operation recuperation. Over the past few years, from Montreal, we were sent to Manitoba, to the Saguenay and to Oka, with very short notice.

As military personnel, we received what is known as a field operations allowance, worth approximately $7.50 clear a day. This is peanuts and isn't worth mentioning.

• 2205

I only wanted to say that when personnel are involved in domestic operations like the one in Montreal and have only a few hours' notice, they can't prepare adequately.

In contrast, when they leave for a one-month exercise in Gagetown, New Brunswick, they can prepare and ask their family members to take care of the dog and hire a babysitter when they are away. With adequate notice, we can avoid a lot of those expenses.

Unfortunately, when you leave under short notice, as was the case, you have to turn around and depend on the telephone to make arrangements, which is not always possible. For instance, when single personnel come back home after three weeks, the fridge stinks and food is lost. We're not necessarily talking big money, but there are other expenses. Your pet dog or cat must be cared for and with such short notice, again, you don't have time to turn around. As is often the case today, if both spouses work, they will have to pay extra kennel charges because they had so little warning. I'm not familiar with all the extra expenses, but I feel that the FOA paid to military personnel is not adequate.

Normally, when members of the military go off on a mission, it is thought that their expenses will be lower, because their family will have one mouth less to feed. Although we have not yet received all the feedback about the costs of the recent mission, they will be difficult to determine. I think that some military personnel who took part in it will end up with less money than they would have had had they stayed at home. That was one facet of the FOA.

Working days to which the FOA applies are between 16 and 20 hours, so they do not necessarily compare to a normal working day in a garrison or in another theatre. Military personnel are not properly compensated, particularly when they compare their salary to that received by workers from other organizations involved in the same project.

It is hard for military personnel to work side-by-side with police officers in Oka or Hydro-Québec workers. They do a reasonably good job, and I am certainly not criticizing them. However, I do know that they stay in hotels and eat in restaurants, while our conditions are quite different. We are actually very proud of the work we do. Members of the military are very happy to do a job of this type. However, working with people from different groups often has an impact on our morale.

I would not want to say how important this is, but I know there is a significant impact on morale in the military. Perhaps this allowance could be studied to determine whether it meets the real needs of military personnel who are sent off on missions, often with very little notice.

I am just looking at my notes to make sure I have not forgotten anything. I would add that it is easy to make an argument about our pay if we compare it to the salaries paid to workers from other organizations, such as the QPF or the blue collar workers in Montreal. We are told that we are paid for 24 hours a day, and we are all prepared to recognize that. However, in this type of context, military personnel should perhaps be told why they are not getting more money or why their allowances are not higher. If it is part of our annual pay, that should be explained to us. The percentage matter was raised, but that still does not properly explain our pay.

• 2210

That is what I wanted to say about allowances.

My second point is about the reserves. I know that there are not many here, but I did work with people in the reserves for two years. During that time, I saw that some summary investigations were conducted on individuals who went into operational theatres and applied for an allowance after being wounded there. The application is transmitted by the chain of command, goes to Ottawa, and then is transferred to the Department of Veterans Affairs. I was looking at the major to see whether he could help me, but I do know that members of the militia often wait between six months and one year, and that is in cases where the delay is reasonable. Often they have to wait two or three years before they get an allowance.

The amounts involved may not always be that large. However, if it takes two or three years to pay a soldier an allowance, he may not necessarily feel that he is getting much support. It might be a good idea to look into this aspect of summary investigations and allowances for members of the reserve. I think the waiting periods are a little too long. That is all I wanted to say. I don't know whether you have any questions.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Do you wish to comment?

Cpl Sébastian Couture: Yes. A summary investigation was done on me regarding my injury. The person who did the summary investigation was a part-time member of the reserve. It is supposed to be a full-time person who conducts the summary investigation so that the matter can be settled quickly. As members of the militia, the problem is that the summary investigation is done by a reservist who works Tuesday evenings and one weekend in two. So it is reasonable that it takes so long. No, it is not reasonable, but they are the people who do the job, and it should not be them. The job should be given to at least one full-time member of the regular army who could put the necessary effort into it. Summary investigations cannot be carried out properly by someone who works only on Tuesday evenings and one weekend out of two. This is quite an important point in the case of an injury. Thank you.

The Chairman: Sergeant Marc Desfossés.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to mention two or three points.

First, I would like to back up what Mr. Labonté was saying about postings. It happens regularly that the spouse is transferred and has time to move into the PMQ. The furniture and boxes arrive, but he has to leave the next morning because of operational requirements. Sometimes he is just going off on an exercise, then he has to leave because his presence is essential. At that point, we see that the families are not really taken into account. I am not talking about a specific unit, but this is something that happens regularly. These situations are very harmful to families, when the husband has to go off and leave his wife and children to cope with all the boxes. That has an impact on the family and the soldier's morale.

We were talking about morale earlier, Mr. Pratt. Personally, I can see how the morale of the people with whom I work is affected. We are talking about privates, who are at a lower level.

• 2215

Privates often leave the army after their initial three-year contract. First of all, they realize that the salary is inadequate. Second, they see how the system works, and they decide to go into civilian life, because things would be better for them there. That happens often. I spent 18 years in the armed forces, and I saw people who had spent 15 or 20 years in the army do that. People are tired of this system that dates back to the 1930s and 1940s; they want out.

We were talking earlier about career managers. We members of the military at the troop level and below do not work with career managers. We have an opportunity to meet with them once a year. We are told that we are our own career mangers. We can meet with them once a year to ask various questions about our career or transfer possibilities. There are three transfer options. That appears in files, and in many cases, the three choices are not considered. We end up going to a fourth location. That happens.

My intention is not to criticize the Prime Minister, because I know these are political issues. I stay away from politics. I do not even read political articles in the newspaper, because I hate politics. Nevertheless, I would like to make a comment. The Department of National Defence intended to purchase some helicopters. The government paid $500 million to the company for cancelling the order, and it may now be purchasing the same helicopters under a different name. It could have offered to purchase the helicopters from the company provided the cost was reduced by $500 million. That was not done. The $500 million went to a civilian company, probably from the United States. The $500 million could have been used for Canadian military personnel, their dependents, service centres, and so on.

We have been talking about equipment. I was at a conference in November during one of my courses, and I was told that equipment purchases were political. Politics is your responsibility, not mine. We were told that most of the time the decision on equipment purchases was already made before the process was set in motion. That's what we hear at our level. That's what the little guy at the bottom hears.

The problem is that the people who have to use the system find it inadequate and are forced to live with the decisions for a number of years. The decision was made at the political level, and it remains there. We are not the people who decide to purchase vehicles. We can try them out and do all sorts of things. We are the people who have to use the equipment, but you are the ones who purchase it.

It often happens that a company tests some equipment for two weeks in one place and for three more weeks in another place. That does not justify the purchase of 80,000 or 60,000 pieces of equipment, which is subsequently qualified as scrap and is replaced three or four years later. But that is not something that is decided at my level; it is decided at your level.

We've been talking about various types of equipment. The problem is the same whether we are talking about the army, the navy or the air force. We have no say in the matter. Our only job is to use the equipment that has been purchased, that is the only role we have. We cannot say anything to the company; the company will look after it. We know that these purchases are made through calls for tender. The company that makes the best bid gets the contract, and once the equipment is purchased, the quality drops.

Let me give you the example of gortex clothing. We got some gortex jackets and parkas, but there were not enough to go around. There were six containers of them in Yugoslavia that mildewed, and they were all burned. That was money going up in flames. It was not my money or yours, but the fact is we did not get our gortex clothing. It is supposed to be coming this year, apparently.

There is something else. Women whose spouses are in the military often have trouble getting civilian jobs. That happens all the time. The woman goes to the job interview and is asked what her husband does for a living. When the employer hears that he is in the military, the woman is told "right, we will be in touch". Employers never call back, because they know that military personnel are likely to be transferred all over the place. If our jobs were a little more stable, as Master Warrant Officer Leblanc or others mentioned, it might be easier for spouses to find a job and keep it longer. That would deal with the salary problem.

• 2220

Single parent families, whether headed by men or women with children, are compensated when they are deployed on an exercise or in an operation. Wherever they are sent, they receive some compensation. In couples where both the man and the woman are in the military, there is no compensation. It is true that such couples have two salaries, but nevertheless, they are both leaving. They went to Operation Recovery in Montreal. They had the same problem as the guy who is the sole head of a family.

Child care expenses are paid to one of the partners, not both, for the child or children being looked after. Why is this not accepted? We are told that our request is not reasonable. I think the situation of a sole parent is the same as that of a married military couple when both of them have to leave. I don't know whether you agree with me on this.

We were talking about Operation Recovery earlier, and about pay and so on. Let me give you an example. We were working with guys from Hydro. They were all quite happy. They did two pylons in a day, and we did ten. They told us they were getting time and half or double time—$80 an hour more to watch us work. They were going around on snowmobiles.

I am not criticizing anyone, but I would like to say that we were there to help people and that our objective was to do our best to help people get their electricity back. I am not criticizing the way we work nor am I criticizing the people from Hydro. The work we did, we did from our hearts.

That was Operation Recovery. The same thing happened in Haiti. We always compare what we are making with what members of the RCMP and the police forces are making. People from the RCMP, the QPF and the municipal police forces get their salary and in addition it is tax free. I believe they were also given $100 US a day to live in Haiti, because they had to pay for their hotel and food.

Like any family, three, four or five of them live together and pay $150 U.S. each and they get the same money. The work is not the same, whether in Yugoslavia or in Haiti. For example, in Haiti, the members of the military have to be ambulance drivers, firemen, social workers, police officers and so on. The work done by the guys in these places is not valued enough. Those are my personal comments. Those are my views. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye would like to comment.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You say that you are not really interested in politics, that you do not even read about politics in the newspapers. There are many people like you, that is not out of the ordinary. I can tell you quite frankly that for some time I too was not interested in politics, but one day I had the same reaction as you just had. I decided that if decisions were made by politicians, perhaps I should become one. Since that time, I have been very much involved. I just wanted to let you know that I share your concerns.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: I would just like to make another point quickly. We hear about salary increases for members of Parliament. This is something I feel very strongly about. Members of Parliament got or perhaps are getting a salary increase from some $60,000 to $106,000. I have nothing against increases. I have nothing against the fact that MPs need only six years of service in order to get a pension, whereas we need 20 or 25 years of service to get a certain percentage of our pension. I think that before MPs get a salary increase, consideration should perhaps be shown for the work done by military personnel, not just by politicians.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I feel like saying that there are some myths around. For example, you get a pension after 20 years.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: We get 40%.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You get only 40%. In our case, after six years of service, our pension would be 24%. You've never seen any defeated members of Parliament living in great luxury. I am thinking of the former MP in my riding. He was a Conservative, Marc Ferland. He had been in Parliament for eight or nine years. He left with a very small pension. Obviously, he had worked... I am saying these things because we are speaking frankly here.

You go off on a mission. Well, tomorrow I am leaving for Ottawa, and I will be back on Friday. I do that week after week. This lifestyle destroys some families.

• 2225

Marc Ferland's story is no secret to anyone. I am not revealing his private life, because everyone has heard about this. He lost his wife and his home. He was a draftsman when he went into politics in 1983. When he came back to private life in 1993, his job was being done by a computer. He had no training in this area and he found himself unemployed.

There are myths about a lot of things. The salary increase you mentioned is not really an increase. They're giving us four quarters for a dollar. At the moment, we make $64,000 plus a tax-free amount of $21,000 to cover our expenses. Now the idea is to give us an allowance that is twice as high, but make it taxable. Half of the amount will go in tax. If you add up $64,000 and $21,000 times two, you come up with a total of $106,000. But it comes to the same as what we have now. However, I am not complaining. I don't want one cent more, and I am sure all my colleagues think exactly the same way. I give you my word that we would not ask people to make sacrifices if we were not prepared to make the same sacrifices ourselves. I'm sure all my colleagues share my opinion on this. Thank you.

The Chairman: I'd like to add a comment about salaries. In the Elections Act, it provides that after every election a committee is set up to examine the remuneration of parliamentarians. This committee tabled a report last week. That does not necessarily mean that what is in the report will be accepted. It's just part of the Act. I just wanted to point that out.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: I understand. It's like our increases: it's decreed and it's not accepted then at some point in time it's decided or not. I understand that, except in your case it's decided a lot faster than in ours. Maybe we could work on that.

The Chairman: Ms. Venne, did you have anything to add?

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Yes, I'd like to add that the Bloc members did point out they wanted no increase. We accepted the conditions as they are. Besides, I would like to point out that I've been a member since 1988 and MPs have not had any increase either. Thank you.

Sgt Marc Desfossés: No problem. Thank you.

MWO Paul Leblanc: I'd have a little something to add. We were talking about the military when they are deployed, before. We were talking about Operation Recovery and all that. Here's why we feel somewhat frustrated when we work with people from Hydro-Quebec or the Sûreté du Québec and so on. The soldier knows that he's not being sent there because the army is operational, because soldiers are all good workers. He knows that he's sent there because it's cheaper. That's exactly what the soldiers think.

We were talking about equipment before. I'll just mention our packsack as an example. That's the packsack or backpack we have. I'm mainly speaking about infantry because I've just left the infantry. You have people in the infantry whose passion is living outdoors. They're always living outdoors. When we buy equipment, why don't we go to see the infantry battalions? Why don't we go and see the people who are going to be working with the equipment? The guy who lives outdoors knows what kind of packsack he needs. I can tell you that that way you'll be paying half of what you've been paying so far for the packsacks that put our backs out of kilter and that cost you an arm and a leg in pensions.

Another thing. I'm an outdoors maniac myself. I walk around in sporting goods stores and I can see the hiking boots they have there. How many brands of hiking boots are there? Salomon, Adidas, Nike and so forth. What are we doing with our army boots? I'm in shape myself. I work out a lot. I run 20 or 21 km on my own. Curiously, when I'm running on my own I don't get any blisters. When I go and do my 13 km—that's the annual test you have to pass with I don't remember how many pounds on your back—I have these big bumps on the soles of my feet when I finish my march. They are blisters. That's not normal.

• 2230

It's not normal to have boots like that in a so-called modern army. It's not normal. There are so many good hiking boots today on the market. Please, sir, I'd really like to have a pair of Salomon or Adidas. I wonder why we still have our boots cut high like that. When I look at all the hiking boots on the market, they're short like mine. They're not good boots, in passing.

Maybe I'd like to raise just one little last point. I may as well while I have the mike. It has to do with physical training in the Canadian Forces.

When you're in an infantry unit, normally, there's no problem. You have time to work out. However, when you're in a support trade, the workload is so heavy that members don't have time to do their military work. Some will say: Yes, but if you were a civilian, you wouldn't work out. I agree, but if I were a civilian, I probably wouldn't be getting a phone call tomorrow morning telling me to leave for Kuwait or wherever. If I were a civilian, my boss wouldn't be coming up to me tomorrow morning saying: Get your packsack ready, you're going for your 13 km test.

I can live with that, I'm a soldier. That doesn't bother me. But I want us to have time to prepare and train. That's what military life is all about. You're supposed to be ready. But people don't have time to prepare anymore because they're given too much to do. We don't have enough staff. In the army, you should have time to train whatever your trade is. No matter what trade they have, people should be in shape and have time to work out.

We should also give a thought to changing workout programs. The thought process is that everyone is the same, everyone goes out with the platoon to run. Maybe we should start thinking about changing things and having training systems so that people...

Some of them come from the commandos. Their backs and knees are finished. The basic problem has to do with how you work out. Those people were not well trained.

That's all. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Jean-Marc Provost.

Corporal Jean-Marc Provost (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I'd like to tell you about the problems of broken-up families and blended families. Right now, I have that problem. I'm divorced. My ex-wife has the two youngest children who are eight and ten. I have the oldest one who's 12. I've remarried with a woman who has two children and a stable job.

Last year, everything was fine because I was in Montreal. We were established. We'd bought a house and everything. Everything was perfect. Everything was marvellous. Then they needed a transfer. So they said: “Provost, you're going to Valcartier.” I'm a good soldier and I accepted the situation. I'm preparing to come here. Oh, my son wants to come with me. He doesn't want to live with his stepmother. That's understandable. We've only been living together for a year. He's not used to this yet. So I told him: “Okay, I'll take you along with me.”

But, all of a sudden, when I show up at arrivals and departures to manage my move, I find out that I don't have a right to anything. My wife has had a job for 23 years. She can't leave her job. She'd lose her pension and all her benefits. I still have four years to go. I mean, it wouldn't be logical!

So I came here alone with my son. I moved my son. It was a partial move. When I got here with my child, I wasn't entitled to any financial aid. If I'd shown up here alone, I would have been entitled to quarters, free rations for a year and $4 a day plus one long distance call a week.

I show up here with my child. I have to pay rent. I have both a mortgage and rent to pay. I have to pay hydro bills for two residences. I have to pay all the bills that go with the two apartments and the two cars. I don't have any more financial aid. It seems there is something missing on the government side. I didn't have to be posted. The person who took my place in Montreal just came from here. Our paths crossed on Highway 20. It's a bit ridiculous.

This means financial stress for my family. With our two salaries and only one house to pay for, life was good. We could take little trips. I saw my other two children regularly. I'm a responsible father. I try to be, anyway. We try to be good parents no matter what the situation. Unfortunately, in the Forces you either move or you don't move. Maybe we have the choice of moving, but today I'm paying the consequences.

• 2235

When we got here, we put in all kinds of requests. I figured that in Ottawa there's probably somebody somewhere who'd examine my file and tell me that I'd still be given the $4 a day. It's not a lot, but at least it pays for the gas I need to go see my children and my wife on weekends. It didn't even reach the unit commander's desk. I was told that my family situation wasn't their business. I was told that I had remarried and that my wife should take care of my kids, consider them as hers and take care of them and that I had to come here alone. That's not our problem, they said.

It seems to me there's a lack of humanity and that bachelorhood is being privileged at the expense of the family. A bachelor leaving on a mission for the United Nations can claim house care expenses but I, the head of a single parent family, who's just spent three weeks in Saint-Hyacinthe helping our fellow citizens, I can't even claim the $300 in childcare that it cost me.

When I got here last August, I only had a week to find a school, a dentist, a doctor and everything else you need to take care of your child when you're in a single parent situation. It's not easy and I can't say that the Forces are there to support us.

I'd also like to say a word about how we're paid in the Armed Forces. We're paid on a monthly basis. Some people are paid regularly every two weeks. We have to have a monthly budget and make our pay last for 31 days. The only month that's easy to manage is February.

If you paid us every two weeks, we could manage over two weeks. Twice a year, we'd get an extra pay cheque and we could afford small extras for our families. When you're making from $30,000 to $35,000 a year, those two little extra pay cheques are quite welcome. They're the ones that you can use to take your kids to the Village des sports, la Ronde and so forth.

I'd like to share something that happened to me. Last fall, at a Dunkin' Donuts, a young girl came up to us and said: “I belong to the Quebec Young Travellers Group and I wonder if you could help me pay for my trip to Europe.” I answered: “We're part of Quebec's young blended families; would you like to help us pay for our trip to the Village des sports”? In today's world, everybody is begging for money from everybody else. Anyway, I'd like to say that getting paid every two weeks, for the military, would be one way of avoiding the financial problems they have.

Right now, with a monthly pay cheque, we have situations that happen two or three times a year and you spend three consecutive weekends without any pay cheques. The third weekend is hard to get through when you're earning $30,000 a year. When you earn between $60,000 and $65,000 a year, maybe it's easier to take. But on $30,000 a year, it's not always easy.

Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I would like a couple of things clarified, just to make sure I understood what you said. First, about your being a single father and having your son with you, are you saying you are treated differently as a single father from how a single mother would be treated, or are you just saying the circumstances in which you chose to have your son with you when you had a spouse somewhere else meant you're treated differently?

[Translation]

Cpl Jean-Marc Provost: The note I got said: “Corporal Provost, your family situation is a personal choice you made; deal with it on your own because we're not a charitable organization”, I have it in black and white. I'm not asking to be treated differently from an unmarried mother. She has the same problems I do, although perhaps in different circumstances. When the bosses ask me if I'm ready to be deployed at a moment's notice, my heart tells me to go, but my pocketbook tells me not to do it.

• 2240

When I go off on a United Nations mission, I don't make any money. It's really to help the others, because I can benefit from this as a human being. We do actually live in a capitalist country. If I'm required to move around and separate from my family, something should be given to me in compensation. What am I supposed to tell my wife? I'm leaving for six months. At least, I should be given something so that when I get back I can tell her that the $2,000 mortgage will be brought down by half.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Again, I'm not sure whether I correctly understood what you said. Did you say that when you were transferred from Montreal to Valcartier, the person who replaced you came from Valcartier?

Cpl Jean-Marc Provost: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I just wanted to get that clear. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: I have a very quick question, Mr. Chair.

Is there direct deposit for your paycheques into a bank account?

Cpl Jean-Marc Provost: Yes, there is, so when it's Saturday, Sunday, or a statutory holiday, we get paid on the Friday. That's why there are about three weekends a year we go without pay. We have a pay on a Friday, and three weekends later, the pay is on a Monday or a Tuesday.

Mr. David Pratt: It seems a little peculiar that the public service is paid every two weeks and—

Cpl Jean-Marc Provost: I know. I know.

It would be about 0.9%, just taking our pay month and splitting it in half. Paying us every 14 days would give us around a 0.9% raise. It would be a good thing to have.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Major Gilles Harbec.

Major Gilles Harbec (Personnel Officer for Valcartier and Land Forces Units, CFB Valcartier): Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, it's getting later and later so I'll try to be brief.

As a personnel officer for Valcartier and for the Land Forces units, I will be talking about the Second Career Assistance Program this evening. You have had an opportunity to hear people talk about the difficulties experienced by soldiers as they prepare for a second career upon leaving the Canadian Forces, which generally happens when they reach the age of forty or have 20 years of continuous service in the Canadian Forces. The Second Career Assistance Program was established about 20 years ago. The primary purpose of the program is to assist people as they plan and prepare to rejoin civilian life, both on a personal and professional basis.

I will be focussing on these two issues, because during the course of your career, or at least towards the end of your career, you have to prepare for the time when you must find employment in the civilian labour force and you also have to make adjustments on a personal level, concerning your family, because you're leaving an organization where you have been a soldier for 20, 25, 30 or 35 years.

I am in charge of this program for Valcartier and the Quebec region, and I can tell you right now that as concerns this transition to civilian life, the objective of the program has not been met, and many retirees are finding it very difficult to return to civilian life to adapt and to find work after leaving the Canadian Armed Forces.

I should mention, Mr. Chairman, that you have a copy of the brief which was tabled this morning.

We must reexamine three essential aspects of the program.

First of all, there's equity. We have provided some examples. The other two aspects pertain to financial benefits and follow-up following discharge.

• 2245

First of all, I feel that it is crucial that all military members be given the same opportunities to take advantage of the Second Career Assistance Program. In order to do this, the services must be harmonized. We have raised this issue several times and we have pointed out, without being able to clarify the reasons, that there were noticeable differences between the bases, between the various organizations and between the various sections within the military organization for a given service.

The service I am referring to is clearly defined within an administrative order, and yet, if you go to Shiloh, Bagotville or Ottawa, you will discover that, in practical terms, the services are not necessarily available, are not necessarily dealt with in the same manner or are not necessarily provided, for all kinds of reasons which will be given at these places.

Procedures vary, and so a soldier who has already begun some preparation work and who is transferred to another base may realize that certain procedures have changed, etc. It is therefore important that services be harmonized and accessible to everyone, regardless of where the soldier may be and what type of work he or she does.

Vocational preparation implies, of course, some type of retraining or refresher courses during a career, so that a soldier can find a civilian job later on. Given what has been said today, you can understand that soldiers cannot both fulfill their military obligations and take night courses in order to prepare for their second career. The program suggests that this is what they should be doing, but in practical terms, we realize that they can't do this. They will try, they will sign up for a course, however, for all sorts of reasons, they have to drop out midway.

They are of course reimbursed if they complete the course, unless they can justify why they had to drop out. I'd like to come back to this issue of cost. Correspondence courses, for instance, are not for everyone. They cannot help everyone who wants to improve himself or perfect his or her academic skills in order to obtain a second job.

This morning we referred on several occasions, and I also deal with this in my brief, to those soldiers who are discharged for medical reasons, as a result of an injury sustained during a mission or training. The only services currently provided to these people are those given as part of the Second Career Assistance Program, which are available to everyone. Consequently, in practical terms, this is very often catastrophic for them. We have seen this during the course of our work, because we had to meet these people and listen to their problems. Ultimately, we had to tell them that we couldn't do very much to help them.

It would be appropriate to provide military members who have found themselves in these situations with special benefits that adequately meet their needs.

Finally, and this is an issue that will certainly be of interest to military spouses, the special nature of military service restricts, as you know, spouses from pursuing and developing their careers. This issue has been raised on several occasions. Consequently, I feel that it would be appropriate to provide the services and financial benefits associated with the Second Career Assistance Program to military spouses. That's what I have to say about equity.

As for financial benefits, for the past 20 years, the program provides for a total amount of $2,500 throughout the career, less taxes. There is no escaping this. Depending on what type of salary you earn, the taxes may be to your benefit or not. At any rate, the final result is that you will not have the benefits to which you are supposedly entitled, namely $2,500. The refund is based on the expenditures incurred in a given school year, using a figure of $280 per year or 50% of the total amount of tuition incurred.

• 2250

If someone exceeds the $5,000 mark during a year, this individual is paid $2,500 less taxes and will be given the total amount to which he or she is entitled in order to prepare for a second career. Over the past 20 years, this amount has been altered only slightly. It certainly does not reflect reality in terms of the costs associated with education, tuition and refresher courses. It is therefore essential that the refund policy be reviewed.

Finally, I would like to talk about follow-up after discharge. At the outset, I told you that the primary objective of the program, when it was first set up, and it has not changed since then, was to help the soldier make the transition to civilian life. I don't know many individuals who go through a transition when they are actually doing something else. The transition occurs after the fact. In our regular and daily contacts with soldiers who are about to leave the organization, we have come to realize that they have scarcely identified the difficulties they will be up against once they leave the organization.

In the months that follow their discharge, we meet people who are euphoric. They are still doing very well. They have just left and it's almost as though they're on vacation. They are not yet aware of the fact that they are at a turning point and that they are going to be experiencing problems on both a personal and professional level. They leave thinking that they won't have to find other employment and that they will be able to live off their pension. However, six months or one year later, identity problems surface and, at one point, they say to themselves: “Well, I'll try and find myself something, etc”.

What I am suggesting is obvious; prolong the second career preparation benefit period in order to allow for a tighter follow-up as well as better support of the recipients. It would then be possible to let those who were having problems see a military representative who would be able to find a solution to their problem or refer the problem to a higher authority.

Very often, once discharged, former members get a 1-800 number, like for the PMQs: if you speak French, dial 1; if you speak English, dial 2; for something else, dial 3. At the end, there's no service. It makes it very hard.

I will conclude with five recommendations.

That services offered by the Second Career Assistance Program be coordinated in order that all members have access to benefits and services wherever they are. We must ensure that all have access to the same tools, to the same kit. We have the necessary expertise, but obviously, we lack the needed staff, etc. There must be a way to invest the needed amounts to ensure that services are available and coordinated.

Additional measures aimed at armed forces members released for medical reasons following injury during a mission or training must be developed.

There should be an option to include the member's spouse as co-beneficiary of services offered as well as financial benefits by the Second Career Assistance Program.

Financial benefits should be increased; specifically, courses should be reimbursed up to $500 per year—I mentioned $280—or 80% of all tuition—the highest of the two—in any school year up to a total of $5,000. Thus if a member considers it unnecessary, for whatever reason, to use the funds earmarked for his employment assistance, his spouse could benefit from the program. Considering the restrictions that she has been under, I think it would quite normal that she benefit from this.

I also think it would be quite normal that she attend the different workshops offered, particularly on preparing a résumé. A full range of services will be developed and I see absolutely nothing to stop spouses from benefiting from all the services offered to Canadian Forces members. I see no difference between him and her. We can offer exactly the same service.

• 2255

Finally, the services offered by SCAN should be prolonged for a two-year period after release with an additional year of grace for administrative details, reimbursement of expenses, etc. During this time, we would be able to follow an individual and help him make a better transition by helping him find employment. That is the end of my presentation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Major.

Mr. Ricardo Gagné.

Corporal Ricardo Gagné (Individual Presentation): Good evening ladies and gentlemen. I would like to bring up two or three brief points.

As corporals in the infantry, we often participate in the United Nations missions. We are deployed abroad and often need a second language. I am only a corporal in the infantry and I asked to take second language training. I was told that since I was only a corporal, I would not need this, that it was only important once you reached the rank of sergeant. However, we are the ones who went to the front in Yugoslavia, in Cyprus, wherever there are conflicts. We are the first to get there and we could settle various things within five minutes of our arrival, but we can't because we have to ask a superior to come since we are unable to fix a problem since they only speak English and we don't understand a word of what they're saying.

This could also perhaps help us as servicemen. Being in the infantry, I could go to Edmonton, but one must be perfectly bilingual. I cannot be transferred to Edmonton because I only speak French and I have to wait to become a sergeant to have access to language training. This is one of the things I wanted to bring up.

Concerning United Nations missions, six months may be a little long for some. Why not offer the possibility of three-month missions with the United Nations? This could help families. Spouses find this long. They have problems with the children, sometimes handicapped children. A three-month mission would be easier for these people.

There was also talk of $5 daycare. I have three children and my spouse works in a daycare centre. If she wants to go to work, she has to spend $20 per week just to get babysitting services for the children. I think that a $5 daycare as a lot of appeal. That's all I wanted to say.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. King Kiley.

[English]

Mr. King Kiley (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I'm not military. I've been a civilian teacher here on the Canadian Forces base for the past 30 years. I've been listening here this evening and I've heard very eloquent testimony to the problems the military and their wives and the garderie have when the men are away. I would like to speak on behalf of their adolescent kids.

For the past ten years we've seen an awful lot of changes; more in the past five. We're starting to see evidence of what the military men and women are undergoing in our schools.

About five years ago the federal government got out of education. We used to have military buses and military support; the use of all kinds of military equipment. We're now treated totally equally by the provincial school boards, who are cutting everything they can to reduce their budgets.

The extra problems military dependent adolescents have is that there's a family centre, but adolescents don't use the family centre. Maybe garderie kids do, wives do, but not adolescents. They need some extra help somewhere else, and we're not offering it.

• 2300

We now see students in high school with migraine headaches. Ten years ago we didn't see this. We see anorexic kids, many of them bulimic kids; dysfunctional families; attention deficient, hyperactive kids. As a math teacher, I can estimate very easily that we now have at least 10 to 20 times what we had 10 years ago as far as problem kids from dysfunctional families in the military go.

Is there any solution to this? Well, a return to federal involvement in education is impossible, but maybe there could be a return to the use of federal facilities. We have a ski hill here on the base. Our schools can use it, but we pay the same rate as do the schools in Quebec City who use it. We have arenas, we have pools on the base, but they're not available to the schools.

I think we have to take our school and say the military community has to get involved. We're at a disadvantage. Not only are we equal to the other schools in the province, but we're at a disadvantage because the other schools in the province have alumni to help them. We don't have past students who stay here and donate $30,000 for a new scoreboard, as happened at another English school in our community. We don't have alumni who stay around.

When I look around at our military base community and at the students who are still living in the area—military—I think there are about three of them on the base there now. One of them, Mr. Leblanc, spoke here earlier. He was a student of mine. His son graduated last year from high school on the base and he's now attending CEGEP. If he moves next year, there's a whole different system of education.

We get kids who arrive in secondary 4 from grade 10 in Alberta. They have to be functionally bilingual or else they can't graduate. They can have 90% in math, chemistry and whatever, but if they get 40% in French they fail. They don't get a high school leaving certificate. They can't go to university anywhere without a high school leaving certificate. They can't even get into CEGEP here in Quebec. It's fine to say that for military guys we'll send them on a French course. You can't do that with an adolescent.

So we have a whole stack of extra problems at the high school here because it serves the military community.

Solutions? Maybe the buses that are sitting out there—often we can use them. Maybe we should have time at the pool on the base. There's a new arena being built; maybe the schools should have time scheduled in the arena. Something has to be done for these adolescents.

We look around and say, well, we have no money to do it, or we can't afford to do it. Well, I'm very much afraid we're turning out youngsters who now, and in the future, are going to be problem adolescents. They're going to be problem young adults. I don't think we can afford to say we can't afford to do it. We can't afford not to do it.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Did you have something else to add?

Mr. King Kiley: Just that when I came here this evening.... I know I've forgotten a whole lot of things I wanted to say. I had no intention of speaking; I just came to listen as part of the community. But when I heard everyone else speaking and no one was talking for the teenagers.... I had a whole lot of other things that I know I will remember later and should have said, but I wasn't prepared. If I sounded a little disconnected now and then, it's because it was on little notes.

The Chairman: I think Judi had a question for you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Are you telling me that military children are not given preferential treatment at military facilities?

Mr. King Kiley: No. We get the exact same treatment as a school in Quebec City.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Who makes that determination?

Mr. King Kiley: You see, until five years ago we had a federal school board and then we sort of belonged to the military community. We don't any more. We're run by the provincial educational system, and the military seems to have wiped their hands of us. We used to get buses, we used to get all kinds of advantages that sort of helped to allay this situation that our kids are in.

You know, the school has to become their second home. We get kids who show up an hour before school, just sitting outside for me to open the door and let them in, because daddy's away, mommy's working, or they only have one, or they have problems. To make it a second home for them, we used to have all these advantages. We don't any more.

• 2305

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Again, I can't understand why a military facility that's vacant, that's not being used, is not made available to family members.

Mr. King Kiley: Very often they're used, and I guess they can honestly say that they can't afford to let us have it. I'm sure the arena that's up there now is used continuously. When the new one opens, I hope they'll think of us.

The things are scheduled, but they don't take into account.... You see, it's like the evening here. People spoke of the wives and the garderie and the husbands and retirement, but nobody looked at the adolescents. They're the ones who are having really serious problems in military families.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't want to belabour it, but if a group of adolescents wanted to use this gymnasium and they were children of military personnel, is there any mechanism to provide them the opportunity to use this facility at little or no cost?

Mr. King Kiley: No, not at the moment.

At our school—we're the second school over there now—we can't afford mini baskets in our gym. The provincial government won't pay for them. We use the Alexander-Wolff school. Our elementary students have to go over there to play mini basketball because we still can't afford to put in basketball nets that move up and down so that the munchkins can use them, as well as the high school kids. We don't have any money.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. de Savoye.

[English]

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: I appreciate what you're saying, because in my previous life I was a teacher too.

Earlier today I was told that there's a club on the base for the youngsters. It's called the Repaire, I believe.

Mr. King Kiley: Yes.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: Something like eight hours a week some people are paid to animate the place. I understand this costs $15,000 a year, but that money won't be available next year. Is that right?

Mr. King Kiley: From what I understand, that's correct. But you see, the Repaire did solve some needs for the students. They need to associate with others. What's really hard for adolescents is that in the military you can't have a best friend. You can't reach out to someone, because the army is in charge of you. If you have a best friend, you don't want to get too close because tomorrow you can be posted, or he or she can be posted. So they don't form the same liaisons with other adolescents that other kids can.

The Repaire definitely serves a purpose; it's a hang-around purpose. The kids need that as well. It's not open often enough. The school needs to be almost a second centre of light, and it's becoming less and less that because we have less and less money.

We can always say it's the provincial government that takes care of education. Yes, but we do have special problems here on the base, as evidenced by listening to all these military people say the families do. We need some sort of financial means to solve this problem.

Mr. Pierre de Savoye: You did well to come forward. Your point is very important. Thank you.

Mr. King Kiley: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

MWO Paul Leblanc: Excuse me, sir. Could I add a point to that? It's true he was my teacher twenty-some years ago.

When the military was involved in the schools, the major units, like my unit, were assigned a school. When I was in Petawawa and the schools were there, we were assigned a school and we helped that school.

For example, Mr. King is talking about basketball nets and fixing things, and so on. The unit commander would in fact improvise, adapt, and overcome the situation, and we'd get things done because it was for our schools and for our children.

When the DND lost all that and went over to the civilian school boards, you tied all the unit commanders' hands. We don't help the schools any more, because we're disconnected from the schools. I don't know if we can. I don't know if the base commander can in fact assign units to schools to help them, but that's what it was before.

Mr. King Kiley: If I could add one more small point on the idea of the military parents, other school boards have parent committees that can help. It's very difficult here. Maybe 90% of the students who start the first year of high school don't graduate from our school. So how interested can a parent be—I know Paul is an exception—in getting involved in the school, helping with everything from bake sales to community breakfasts, if they know the student is only here for two years, or three years, or four years?

• 2310

We're missing an awful lot of parental participation in the school that they do get elsewhere in the province of Quebec, because the military people are here for only two or three years. So we're lacking parental support—not from all of them; we do get some very good parents who support the school while they're here, but they're here for two years and then they're gone.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Ms. Danielle Longpré.

Ms. Danielle Longpré (Individual Presentation): I want to support what has been said while adding something about the FORT program and the grants under HRIF for the benefit of Micheline Laurencelle. She stated that the grant was given for the last five years to those who had children and that to others it was given for three years. In my case, I'm not eligible and I will tell you why.

In 1993, when I arrived here, I went back to school. At the end of the semester, in May, I did not find work. In 1993, when I came back from Europe, I was entitled to a bit less than a year of unemployment insurance. Because of that, I am not eligible for HRIF funding.

As far as policies aimed at families, I would like to say that it would be a good idea to enhance other services. We know that in government, under present circumstances, everything is being restructured, even hospitals. Services have also decreased.

It might be a good idea to examine those services being offered now. It might be an eye opener to employers as well as Force members. Indeed, we need the Armed Forces to adapt to our needs, to the reality of our lives.

As far as the FORT program is concerned, I'm a worker and a volunteer there. I am ready to fight to save that program because we really need it, as do spouses, when we leave the Armed Forces to begin a second career.

My third point has to do with asking how the suggestions made today will translate into action, and how we can stay informed about what is going on.

The Chairman: Ms. Longpré, everything that we have heard here tonight will be reported to Ottawa. We will try to put everything into the report we will give the Minister. I don't know if we will be able to include everything we have heard, because we have heard a lot in the different bases. Sometimes, we heard about local problems. Nevertheless, I hope to be able to identify problems that are shared by all. These will be included in our report to be presented to the House of commons where it will be given to the Minister.

• 2315

Ms. Danielle Longpré: Thank you very much.

Ms. Ginette Tremblay: Ms. Longpré spoke of hospitals. I would like to know why dependents—I really don't like that term—do not have the right, in emergencies, to go to the base hospital. You have to go to Loretteville. If there is an emergency, no one is allowed to go to the base hospital. I would like to know why it wouldn't be possible, everywhere in Canada, to use the base installations where there is a hospital, in an emergency. When there is such an emergency, and you are alone, with your husband away, going to Loretteville with a child is very far.

The Chairman: Thank you for that suggestion. We are coming to our last witness, Mr. Louis Buteau.

Corporal Louis Buteau (Individual Presentation): My first point will be on teenagers, and will also touch on the army. At the end of the day, it's always the family who ends up paying. When the military member pays, the family does too.

Without going into any details on my personal life, my first complaint is that grievances can take up to five years to be settled. Several other people have mentioned that as well. Five years is a very big chunk out of a 20-year career. In some cases, people spend longer working on their grievances than on their careers. I think there is a problem there. That is one example you were given. This has been mentioned. A grievance can take five years to settle.

Unlike my colleague, I follow politics to some extent. I listen to what is being said about CPAC. The notion of an ombudsman has been put forward. Perhaps I'm using the wrong term, but I think you know what I mean.

In the army, we do not need a union. I don't think we are at that point yet. But when someone from outside the system—regardless of whom—examines situations, that person is outside the system if he finds there is something wrong. He or she won't be looking at the army's green book. If my company clerk tells me I'm not entitled to do something, and I submit a grievance that goes up to Ottawa, the clerk in Ottawa is going to look in the same manual and come up with the same answer. That may take time, but it doesn't change very much.

And if further questions are asked, we can assume that person found the answer neither very clear nor very satisfying. But if the decision were taken out of the system, without being entrusted to the private sector or to judges, we would still need a system that was quick and simple. It might be interesting to create a system of that sort so that the problem could be put before others, and so that a more frank and more direct response could be obtained. If the response cannot be found in that manual, we should be able to come up with one. All too often, we stop at what the manual says, when we should be going a little further.

My other point is on salaries. Everyone wants to be paid more than they are, and we are no exception to the rule. The explanation I received—I don't know how accurate it is, but never mind—is that my salary is determined by comparing my job with employees in the public service. For example, I am compared with someone who works at a post office, who is in charge of four or five people, and who earns some $35,000. So my salary, the salary of a master corporal, is set at $35,000.

But quite a few things are not taken into account. Sometimes, I have to sleep outside, and I don't think a post office employee often does that. I don't want to go into all these details. There is no doubt that, for some 10 to 15 years now—or at least for quite a few years—we have been tolerating a slight difference. We have tolerated the fact that army salaries were lagging behind somewhat. But with the years, we have had to tolerate more and more, and still more.

Is this how salaries are really calculated? Most of you are members of Parliament, so let me ask you this: would you tolerate a member of the Ontario Legislature earning more or less than a member of the Newfoundland Legislature? I don't think you would say yes to that. That would be intolerable.

What makes everyone feel frustrated is seeing people getting paid double time for overtime, while we earn $12 and a few cents. I don't want to go into detail here. I just wanted to explain that we are not necessarily asking for a raise, we are not demanding anything. We are just very tired of being tolerant, and most of us find this situation unacceptable. If our salary is really comparable to that of a post office employee, then at least we should have an equal salary. I think I should have more, because I sleep outside and get sent to Haiti. But at least my salary should be equal.

• 2320

I think I should get a little more. I sleep outside, I get posted to Haiti, and I have to do other things. But I would at least like a salary that is equal. I wouldn't even think of asking for a raise. I don't think we should be demanding things, but we should be given our due.

When I receive my paycheck every month, it always feels like $200 or $300 have been deducted, and that something is missing, as if I am not getting what I am due. I don't want anything that isn't mine, I don't want to be given anything out of pity, but someone somewhere said that this is what my job is worth. So give us our due. That's how I feel.

My last point concerns holidays. Here again, we can compare ourselves with Canada Post employees, who get goodness knows how many holidays. The Forces have issued a policy prohibiting us from accumulating leave in the future, because in the long run it costs too much, and for other reasons. I have no problem with taking all my leave—I get 25 days a year—when I can, of course. It looks easy. Twenty-five days isn't that much, but sometimes it's almost too much. Sometimes you can't find the time to take it all.

I wonder why and how you can force someone to take leave. If you look at the family policy, you'll see that Forces personnel are encouraged to take all their leave to avoid burnout. That's so you're still full of pep after 20 years, and not all washed up. By taking 25 days' leave every year, you'll make it through a 30-or 40-year career in the army without any problems. No burnout.

But I wonder how you can be on leave and manage to fully appreciate the time spent with your family and children. When a soldier is tense, his whole family knows it. How can you be on holiday with your family, rest, relax, get your mind off things and put some distance between you and your work when you could be called back in with just two, three or four hours' notice? I have a really hard time doing that.

I have a problem when I am given eight of my 25 days' leave, and then called into work with two hours' notice. I cannot just switch off and pretend I'm no longer in the army, at least for a while. When I stroll around the mall with my kids, I have to carry a beeper. If I forget my beeper, I have to call in every two hours. So I am not really on leave, am I?

If you say we are equal, you have to give us conditions that are equal. If you can't do that, let's stop saying we are equal. Let's just say that's how things are in the army, and leave it at that. We have to compare apples with apples.

That's all I have to say.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, you had a question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're talking about the gap in pay. I'm not sure I understood what you were getting at. You're talking about the gap between what you're paid and what you're worth? Is that what you're referring to?

[Translation]

Cpl Louis Buteau: In my opinion, we should be able to compare the salary of a master corporal who supervises five or six people with the salary of a Canada Post employee who also supervises five or six people. If the Canada Post employee earns $35,000, I should earn $35,000 as well. If the nights I spent in the woods and other things are not taken into consideration when my bonus is calculated, I don't really mind. I'm not looking for a salary of $60,000 either.

I'm talking about equality. Given that the Canada Post employee earns $35,000 and I should be earning $35,000, you can see what a disparity we have been tolerating over the last eight years, and that disparity keeps right on growing. I don't know the exact figures, but I'm sure someone does. If I remember correctly, the disparity is on the order of 16% for officers and 6 to 8% for non-commissioned members. I consider this unacceptable. As far as I am concerned, there is a 6% shortfall in my salary, and an even bigger shortfall for some other members of the Armed Forces.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Now, you said if someone doesn't want to take the 25 days of leave, they shouldn't have to. I assume you're saying they should be able to work and get paid for it if they don't want to take the leave?

[Translation]

Cpl Louis Buteau: I think that, about four years ago, we were entitled to 25 days' annual leave with pay. If by March 31st we had used only 12 because we were taking courses or for other reasons, we still had eight days of so-called “accumulated” leave. But since the new policy has been in force, a member of the Armed Forces is no longer entitled to accumulate 100 days over a 20-year period.

• 2325

The policy states that this practice was too expensive, and that grounds for accumulating leave were not important. The policy states that we have to take all our 25 days of leave. However, some Forces members who are instructors are occasionally unable to use those 25 days. If they have three or four days left, the army can say: “Too bad, you're going on leave anyway, what a pity it's March.” The first battalion might be called on to take part in an immediate action, and—like last week—we get only two hours' notice. How are we supposed to take leave and rest when we are asked not to go too far? I find it a bit difficult.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. It has been a very long day, but we have heard a great deal of interesting testimony. Thank you again for all your suggestions and comments. Good evening.

The meeting is adjourned.