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, March 16, 1998

• 1908

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)): We're ready to continue with our hearings this evening.

I want to let you know how it's set up. We do have some people who have made formal presentations, and we will get to them in a second. We do have translation available, so you're free to speak in any language you feel comfortable in, providing it's French or English. We'd be a little stuck if it's something else.

Just so you're not intimidated by some of the things that are going on, everything is being recorded directly to Ottawa as you make the presentation. We'd like you to be open and candid with us. We certainly had an excellent afternoon, with the people being exactly that. We would encourage you to come forward.

We do have a list of some people who will be making presentations. Some people who didn't get a chance to get on this afternoon if they are back here will get the first priority, and then after that we will open up the floor and allow as many people who want to make a presentation to make a presentation. If it means being here until 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock, we'll be here.

We will start off this evening with Peggy Davidson. Is Peggy here?

And I might add just to stick around the mikes after you make your presentation for questions from my colleagues: David Price representing the Conservative Party, and my Liberal colleagues David Pratt and Judi Longfield.

Peggy, the floor is yours.

• 1910

Ms. Peggy Davidson (Individual Presentation): Thank you. Mr. Chair, members of the standing committee, thank you for the opportunity of addressing you today.

I've had previous experience on your side of the podium, but this is the first time I've appeared on this side. I apologize in advance for any nervousness I may exhibit tonight.

I am the wife of a serving member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I am not a military wife. For myself and other wives present here tonight, I am sure there is a big difference. Tonight I too address the issues of recreational facilities and clubs and how they affect the quality of life of spouses and families who live within the confines of military bases.

A recent headline in the Kingston Whig-Standard stated: “The quality of life is not what it used to be”. In some instances this is a good thing. Years ago, 29 to be exact, when my husband I married, he was posted to Germany. According to the agreement with the assenting states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, spouses of serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces were afforded the status of “dependent wife”.

Trust me, if you got to know some of the spouses here tonight you would come to realize that we are far from dependent upon anyone. Because the label “dependant of” stamped in our passports was a prerequisite to us being allowed to join our spouses in Germany, we acquiesced.

Once housing deemed appropriate to our husband's rank was available, we were marched in. Upon leaving Germany, we were marched out. During our stay in the land of beerfests and oompah bands we were subject to military law, and were court-martialed if we committed an offence. A military lawyer was appointed to us and we appeared before a military judge. We shopped at CANEX, a military-run store, and our children went to schools run by the Department of National Defence. From the word go we were subject to all things military. As did the camp followers of old, we folded up our tents and followed the troops.

Things have changed somewhat from those years long ago. Spouses of serving members and military are no longer referred to as “dependent wife”; they'll end up with a black eye if they do.

The family resource centre has been set up to provide support and resource material to families. Day care centres have been established to provide quality care for our children, and to help ease the pressures on our serving members as they add the responsibility of child care to the day-to-day pressures of their military duties.

During change of command parades, at every retirement dinner and at every turn, spouses and families have been thanked for their support. At the same time we are encouraged by the statements that we are an integral part of the military family, that we keep the home fires burning, that we are the backbone of the regimental family and that we are the reason our soldiers keep soldiering on.

Today by appearing before the standing committee I am probably seen by many as going against the unwritten military law that spouses of the military should be seen and not heard. We must not create an administrative problem for our spouses in uniform, as this may have an adverse effect on their careers.

We have all heard horror stories of a wife who asked an embarrassing question during a briefing session. Her husband was called up before his CO and told in no uncertain terms to get his wife under control. A lot of spouses live in fear of making this embarrassing faux pas.

I am very fortunate. My husband reaches his compulsory retirement age this year, and he has reached the top of his career ladder. I have no such fear of making a mistake, or of damaging his career. Besides, he stopped trying to get me under control years ago.

Two areas that I personally think affect the quality of life on military bases, and which I have personal knowledge of, involve the input to decision-making processes affecting recreational clubs and the funding for recreational clubs.

In terms of number one, the input to decision-making process affecting recreational clubs, spouses and children of members of the Canadian Armed Forces make up the silent majority who populate military bases across Canada. They have little or no say in the decisions that affect our lives.

For instance, two of our clubs are pottery and ceramics. I happen to be the president of the pottery club here on the base. At CFB Kingston, we were recently forced to cease operation. Members of these facilities use the clubs to help relieve stress. When your spouse goes off on a second or third tour to Bosnia, there is nothing more satisfying than smashing a hunk of clay down onto a table. It is a lot better than yelling at your children or kicking your dog because you're lonely and frustrated.

• 1915

Secondly, it provides an outlet from studies. I am a C student. I find participation at the clubs help clear the mind so you can go back to the ins and outs of quantum physics and molecular make-up of DNA— I still don't understand what that is— and the intricacies of why Blücher and not Wellington really was the hero of the Battle of Waterloo.

It's also used to learn a life skill. Pottery and ceramics can be a rewarding life skill after retirement.

To get back to the closure of these clubs, the base surgeon conducted preventive medicine inspection of these clubs and as a result of his inspection recommended corrective action. The clubs in question could not take corrective action on the recommendations because they were not included in the distribution of the recommendations, and those persons who had them did not pass the information on to the clubs concerned.

Don't get me wrong on this. The clubs are not blaming any one person in particular. What we find fault with is the system. The system let us down.

We are not military. We do not wear our husband's rank. We do not have an acronym for our club. This appears to be a prerequisite to be included in the distribution list for military memos. We should have been afforded the courtesy of being included in the action or information distribution list for the base surgeon's report. Because we were not included, we did not receive the information and we were not able to respond.

The pottery and ceramics clubs totally support our base commander in his decision to close the clubs. Because of the findings and recommendations of the base surgeon, he had no choice. Because of the chain of command that exists within every military system, a certain format has to be followed. Because the clubs do not necessarily fit within that format, we must rely on others to look out for our best interests. The military system does not allow for representation by population.

My recommendation is that recreational clubs, especially clubs predominantly used by spouses and children of serving members, should have a representative who looks after their best interests. This representative should not be a paid position and should not be a past member of the military. This representative should have a finger on the pulse that contributes to the quality of life within the confines of the military base and should have direct access to the base commander.

My second point is on funding for recreational clubs. A global budget is assigned to the base commander and he has to ensure the moneys he receives cover all aspects of his base. During the last five years CFB Kingston has had to contend with a budget reduction of approximately 42%. I cannot even begin to imagine how our base commander has been able to carry out his assigned operational tasks with these cutbacks.

As we all know, bases across Canada are being closed. Because the closure of CFB Kingston was a very real fear to all the populace of Kingston, a task force was set up. The CFB Kingston task force, a partnership of CFB Kingston, the City of Kingston, and Pittsburgh Township, was struck to ensure the continuous viability of the base. They have done a marvellous job of suggesting and implementing cost-cutting measures for the base.

According to National Defence Minister Art Eggleton,

CFB Kingston is in good hands. It's undergone a lot of change and reduction. We hope to keep it going. This one I think has a great chance of making it. We're not through all the cost-cutting yet— from a couple of budgets ago, so we have to be alert and do our best to keep these costs down.

I do not begin to understand the inner sanctum that governs non-public funds versus public funds versus operational funds versus quality-of-life funding. All I know is that when it comes down to the larger scheme of things it is not fair to ask our base commander to undertake his operational tasks, reduce the costs of operating CFB Kingston, and improve the quality of life for his troops and their families, all from the same purse.

My recommendation is that a quality-of-life fund should be established within CFB Kingston to help members of the military and their families deal with the day-to-day stresses of military life. This fund, independent of base operational funds, should be responsible for establishing and maintaining a recreational facility that will afford recreational clubs the space to operate without fear of closure.

• 1920

As the Chief of Defence Staff stated in his address to the standing committee last fall, and I quote:

Our budgetary pressures are real. We have a delicate balance between the need to fund necessary support programs for members and their families and the requirement to provide adequate funding for modern equipment and essential training— we will need your help to identify new, innovative— and affordable— solutions to any additional support program you may recommend.

During Defence Minister Art Eggleton's visit to Kingston on Friday, February 28, he said “I think there's a lot of hope for the Canadian Forces.” I'm glad somebody thinks there is. He also said that improving the quality of life for the troops and their families was one of his four priorities.

During your tour of bases across Canada I'm sure you've received many recommendations and requests for improving the quality of life for our serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces and their families. Everyone, regardless of whether they are in or out of uniform, likes to have a voice or a say in how their lives are run.

Mr. Chair and members of the standing committee, I appreciate the opportunity of addressing you this evening and I thank you for granting me the opportunity to have my say.

In conjunction with my presentation tonight, I would like to introduce Diane Anthony. Diane is the president of our ceramics club and she'd like to add just a few comments to my presentation, if that's all right with the committee.

The Chairman: Go ahead.

Ms. Dianne Anthony (Individual Presentation): I want to speak today as a member of the military community. My role in the military has always been one of support to my husband, my children, his career and the military community in which I find myself.

Community volunteer work has always been very high on my list on each base that I've been posted to. This is a very challenging role with lots of roadblocks, untested waters, political games and few gains. I have seen many a bureaucracy put in place over the past 24 years to assist, improve and enrich the life of the soldier and the lives of his family members.

Many of these committees start off in their own direction, completely separate and apart from whatever systems are already in place. They should be looking at what is already there and adding to and improving on it.

If you take a close look at the recreational clubs on bases, they're run 100% by volunteers with a view to providing a service to as many as possible at a minimal cost. They have no hidden agendas and no other task except that of providing relaxation and fun for the families of the soldiers.

The clubs on base provide an outlet for families, which they can look forward to from one base to the next. The clubs are something that a member can participate in several times a week, each and every week, not just through one-shot deals here and there and only when husbands are deployed out. Friendships are made there, support for each other is given, and they are often the only sanctuary that a family member has for the wife and the children.

There are many activities a base itself organizes for the soldiers to help them foster their comradeship and obtain much needed down time when times are tough, but the clubs on a base are the only thing for spouses and their children to use as their outlet. These clubs should be increasing and growing, not falling prey to the cuts and shortfalls in hard times. That's when we need them the most.

Recreational clubs should not have to compete for space with organizations set up to “add” to the quality of life. It's hard to see the “adds” when an organization comes in and you immediately see the minuses, when thrift shops, clubs and community activities, especially small ones, have to take second place to office space.

Office space should be in administrative buildings. Clubs have specialized requirements and should be centralized for communities in order to maximize their use. They should be within easy walking distance for children and others on a base who may not have transportation. A community centre should be exactly that— a community centre full of community activities. Office space and other such things should be very limited and should be located in admin buildings.

As Peggy was saying, we are often thanked at dinners by the COs of the unit for unfailing support and for being the steadying factor in our husbands' lives. I would like to see these words turned into action by support for the clubs. There are many clubs on base currently in a crisis situation, not just ceramics and pottery. There are auto hobby and wood hobby clubs, to name a few. There's a shortage of buildings on the base and it's easy to see why. Everything is being torn down and nothing is being built up.

It's hard to justify use of a building for a community function when you need space to run a base. The base is trying its best, but with buildings coming down all over the place it's hard. Many clubs are in need of immediate support to keep their very much needed activities going. These clubs are extremely important as recreational and social outlets for many.

• 1925

If you want to increase quality of life for the soldier and their family, then give us a place to look forward to going to on a consistent basis, where we can grow, network and support each other and also offer the skills we have. We need a place to call our own, where we feel comfortable and we feel welcome.

The pottery and ceramic clubs have been temporarily closed down, as Peggy has said, waiting for relocation. Even though we are into our fourth week of standstill operations— they haven't really been closed, you just can't do anything in them— our members still meet on a regular basis each week just to talk, to connect. That's how important it is for the people who belong there. They still go even though they can't perform their hobbies.

If you're able to hear our plea for support, not necessarily always falling on the bases' shoulders, but outside and apart from base funds, then we may have a chance. The bases have been so hit by cutbacks that we've gone through all the fat and are now hitting the muscle. They themselves cannot continue to come to our rescue. We need another avenue that has quality of life as its mandate, and not the running of a base.

At this point, I believe we might have a chance. To me, quality of life feeds the soul and the spirit. Our spirits these days are low, and our mental well-being makes addressing these issues essential.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Dianne.

If Dianne and Peggy would like to stay for a second, I'm sure we'll have some questions, starting with David Price.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I certainly agree with you that recreational and cultural activities really tend to create a community. That's usually done through volunteer organizations, all that type of thing.

I like the way you prepared this thing. At least you put recommendations in. That's nice. That helps us a lot.

Why were those two clubs closed? You didn't give the reason. Perhaps you could give us a little more background.

Ms. Peggy Davidson: In 1994 the building that housed the day care centre on the base was condemned, and they were moved into the community centre. At that time we expressed our concern about having a day care in a community centre where there was a pottery and ceramics club.

Mr. David Price: Because of the ventilation?

Ms. Peggy Davidson: Ventilation, yes, and also the free silica in the air, that type of thing. We know what we're doing when we go into this type of work, but the children don't, so it wasn't right to subject them to that.

Because of the demand for space within the community centre, the drop-in centre for the young children has been moved actually up to our floor, right beside where our kiln room is. The medical surgeon did a report and his recommendation was to close us down. We fully agree with that. It was recommended before that the day care not be located in our community centre.

Mr. David Price: Those are two clubs that have closed down for a specific reason. You talked about others closing down slowly, too.

Ms. Dianne Anthony: They're not closed; we just can't do anything.

Mr. David Price: So it always come down to room.

Ms. Dianne Anthony: Basically.

Ms. Peggy Davidson: It's the space.

Ms. Dianne Anthony: There are a lot of clubs facing that situation.

Mr. David Price: So you have a great lack now of community involvement because a lot of these clubs aren't really operating.

Ms. Peggy Davidson: One of the other buildings that had been condemned and demolished was the building where the wood hobby shop was in. They've had to relocate. They received next to no notice, just that the building was coming down and they had to move. They did find another location for them, but I believe the auto hobby club is now also in jeopardy.

Mr. David Price: Is there any interaction in these clubs with, say, people in town, or non-military personnel who work on the base?

Ms. Dianne Anthony: Yes. Part of our membership is from outside.

Mr. David Price: So you do have total community involvement, not just on the base.

Ms. Peggy Davidson: That's right, but the majority are spouses of military or actual members of the military.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is to Peggy Davidson. Peggy, you're nearing the end of your tenure, I guess, as a wife of someone in the military.

Ms. Peggy Davidson: If I can get him out of uniform, yes.

• 1930

Mr. David Pratt: If you had the opportunity to speak to the spouse of a new recruit, what sort of advice would you give him or her?

Ms. Peggy Davidson: You shouldn't join if you can't take a joke. You have to have a very good sense of humour to stay as a spouse in the military. Lots of things are thrown at us that we have absolutely no control over. You also have to maintain your independence. That would be my main topic to discuss with anyone who's considering marrying a member of the military: maintain your independence. You have to be your own person.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much.

Next, Corporal Huddleston.

Corporal Mason Huddleston (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Corporal Mason Huddleston and I'm with Integrated Logistic Service here at CFB Kingston.

I would like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to address our concerns and views on some points we feel strongly about and would like to see changed. Prior to your arrival, we held meetings to try to choose some of the more critical problems to present to you this evening. As you can see— you have a copy of our brief in front of you— we decided to present you with the problems, some background, and then a suggested solution.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Just to clarify, who is “we”?

Cpl Mason Huddleston: I mean those of us in Integrated Logistic Service. We held meetings prior to your coming here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Great. Now I get it.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: It saves 15 of us coming up. I'm sure you'll appreciate that, respectfully, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We do.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: The first thing I'd like to talk about is pay increases. Increases are not fair and equitable for all. Senior civil servants have received increases of up to 19%. Senior officers are being considered for substantial increases up to 19%. I submit to you now that commissioned and non-commissioned members below the rank of colonel are not being treated equally. Our standard of living for NCMs and officers below the rank of colonel has decreased on average by 14.4% since 1991, while some senior personnel have received increases of up to 19% since 1991, not including bonuses.

These percentage increases only meet the needs of our senior personnel. We're not asking to be treated better, just equally. Perhaps creating a set amount in dollars, not percentages, for all personnel would be much more reasonable.

The next point is the pension fund. At present there are no options in reference to the management of our pension contributions. There is approximately $20 billion in our pension fund being looked at for dispersal. Plans should be developed to offer members investment options in respect to pension contributions. This will give us a limited amount of control over our future financial positions.

PMQ rental rates do not reflect the level of services provided. Increases in rates, appliances being removed, and a decline in the standards of maintenance are just a few of the problems being mentioned. We've made several attempts to contact CMHC in order to obtain information regarding planned increases and maintenance scheduling, with no success. Perhaps this is a sign of things to come.

An effective mechanism should be installed to help PMQ residents have their maintenance problems resolved in a timely fashion. There should also be a review and stabilization of rental rates to reflect the standard of accommodations being provided.

Mess dues are not tax-deductible. These dues are mandatory, according to our Queen's Regulations and Orders. Article 27-1 paragraph 10 states: “Every member must belong to a mess”. Perhaps liaison with Revenue Canada to include these charges in union or professional dues would be appropriate. Should this not be possible, they should be eliminated altogether.

Posting allowances, at this time, are taxable and rank-based. Again, there should be liaison with Revenue Canada to make this a non-taxable allowance and to make it a set amount for all members, non-ranked-based.

• 1935

On the pension buy-back, a time line and payback in dollar amounts are not clearly defined for members. We have two members in our unit alone who have been transferred from the reserve force to the regular force, of their own volition, of course. They have not been given clear parameters on the dollar amount or the time line of their payback and are still paying without any direction or objective. Pension buy-backs should have clearly defined parameters prior to the commencement of pay deductions above and beyond normal contributions.

In regard to medical appointments, there are lengthy waits for appointments for specialists. Perhaps devolving responsibility to local medical officers, to refer personnel to local or area resources if more expedient, could perhaps facilitate a speedier recovery or diagnosis. This can only benefit our members.

My last point, and not my least one, is on morale. All of the aforementioned points severely impact on morale within the DND. In order for us to maintain our morale, we are becoming more and more dependent on our family members, who are having a hard enough time making do with less. Personnel are overworked due to downsizing. They have no financial incentives, due to pay freezes, and have very limited career opportunities for advancement. As you are all aware, stress-related problems are being directly related to our work environment. The presentations being made to you clearly reflect the desperation in the hearts and minds of the members.

As to action by SCONDVA, what will SCONDVA do with the information provided to you by the members? Do the possibilities include the development of a white paper, an action committee within the CF, or other mechanisms to implement the solutions?

In closing, I would like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity. We hope these concerns have been helpful to you and will not go unanswered.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Corporal.

I can answer a couple of questions. As to the last one— what will the SCONDVA do with the information you have provided— obviously we record everything, and it will all be put in. We have two research gentlemen here who are making notes, and it will obviously be part of our recommendations.

Does it possibly include the development of a white paper? Personally, I don't think we need another white paper. What we need is some action, and what we need to do is put forward an action paper that we can take to the House of Commons, to make sure that all parties agree. And by the way things look for us, I don't think we have any problem in that. I think it's probably the first time in a long time that we have a unified committee that wants to do something.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: I hope your optimism is contagious.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): So do I.

Now we will open it up for questions. Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: I have just one question. I wonder if you could talk a little more about the pay system, any other comments on the pay system, because it is something we heard in other places and it hasn't been touched on too heavily here to this point.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: As one major point, nobody disputes that the senior members don't deserve a pay raise, or I should say a pay adjustment. I agree that they need a pay adjustment. But 3% to a member who makes $155,000 a year is a far cry better than 3% to a man who makes $35,672.

Mr. David Price: Corporal, it wasn't that part I was looking for.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: Sorry, I had to get it in there.

Mr. David Price: That one we have heard quite a bit about. I was looking more at actually the way you receive your pays and the problems within the pay system itself— that you get your pays on time, that the deductions are right or wrong, that type of thing.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: Our pay system has come a long way since I joined in 1981. I haven't had a problem with my pay, personally, other than it's too low.

Mr. David Price: That does keep coming back.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: I believe the implementation of our pay system on computer has helped our financial and administrative people. Whenever you have a problem with your pay, it's much easier to get it sorted out now.

Mr. David Price: Okay, so you aren't really having problems with it at this point.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: None.

Mr. David Price: Good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Picking up on the subject of pay, you folks are paid once a month, are you not?

Cpl Mason Huddleston: No, it's twice a month.

Mr. David Pratt: Twice a month, okay.

We did hear some recommendations about putting the Canadian Forces on the same type of pay schedule as the public service, which I think would amount to one or two additional pays per year.

• 1940

Cpl Mason Huddleston: I haven't looked at whether or not that's of benefit. I'm sure if some members brought it to your attention, then it would benefit us. I would have to agree with them. They must have looked at that further.

Mr. David Pratt: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Can you just explain something to me? You just passed it. I think I was probably writing something down when you were saying it. It's when you started off with talking about your pay increases as a percentage in dollars. I just caught the end of it. Can you just maybe elaborate on it a little bit more if it's possible?

Cpl Mason Huddleston: Instead of giving a senior man a $4,700 increase per year, perhaps raising everybody's pay $2,200 per annum would be a better idea. It's equal, as opposed to giving someone so much more than the others. My last pay increase— I don't mind saying it, as I'm sure it's public knowledge— was $30 a month, I believe. So it's rather insignificant when you look at people who are getting $3,500.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Okay. The other thing I just wanted to ask about quickly is that posting allowances should be non-taxable and non-rank-based.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: Right. They give a month's pay as an incentive now to individuals to post them. It's supposed to be an incentive. I can honestly say that I have been posted several times, and at the end of the year, it's not any incentive whatsoever when I deal with Revenue Canada. My point is that it should be a non-taxable allowance and a set amount. It would benefit all members.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): It's not a set amount, is it?

Cpl Mason Huddleston: No, it's based on your pay, depending on what you net, of course.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Is it based on your rank as well?

Cpl Mason Huddleston: Yes, it's now a month's pay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, we heard that this afternoon. I believe somebody was concerned about that.

Cpl Mason Huddleston: It's two weeks if you're single. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. Thank you very much, Corporal, I appreciate it very much. Thank you.

Next is Gladys Maguire.

Ms. Gladys Maguire (Second Vice-President, Union of National Defence Employees, Local 641): Good evening, chairman and the standing committee. I'm hear tonight to talk on behalf of civilians. I'm hear from UNDE's chapter 641. I'd like to talk on the civilian quality of life.

Civilian members provide operational service requirements to CFB Kingston and lodger units. The achievements of an organization as a combined efforts of each individual. Productivity is through people. Civilians represent skills, processes, culture, experience, continuity and teamwork.

Are we treated as equals to our military counterparts? Salaries have been frozen since 1987. Statistics Canada confirms that the cost of living has increased by 34% between 1987-97. Compensation is 15% to 18% lower than that of the military for performing the same job-related functions. Families, including single-parent families, are struggling to keep above the poverty line index. The reality is that we are 34% poorer than we were a decade ago.

Consider civilians as military spouses. They are the backbone of every military member. Their major concerns are education for their children, employment opportunities, and the loss of skills due to technological change.

These military spouses are the caregivers and sole disciplinarians to their children in their role of being single parents during the deployment of their spouses. They at times feel isolated and lonely. Long absences away from their loved ones cause stress and often marital breakdowns as families disconnect.

DND should support lobbying the federal government to standardize provincial education. One woman said that when she went to Newfoundland, her child had to be put back a year in school.

DND should subsidize skills upgrading, and provide a compensation package to reconnect families upon the return from deployment.

The aforementioned actions would increase morale and improve the quality of family life.

• 1945

Alternate service delivery, ASD, is a favourite word of ours. Is privatization— contracting out— a response to budget cuts and a means of comparing alternatives? The estimated cost of ASD is 25% of total project costs. They are one-time costs, with two years to recoup. Net savings would be realized in the fifth year. Taking into account the future value of the dollar, contractor inexperience, and the unknown variables, no significant costs would be saved.

DND should decentralize operations internally; show a preference for action rather than decision-making through cycles of analysis and committee reports; clearly identify the true and total operational costs, based on activity costing, to reduce total expenditures; and reduce bureaucracy by reducing hidden costs.

Civilians fear job insecurity. They fear losing the ability to provide for their families. Fear of the unknown creates stress. Stress causes frustration, illness, and disease and places a further burden on social programs.

In conclusion, the DND population of approximately 60,000 military members and 20,000 civilians is a valuable resource. Let's not forget they are also taxpayers and should have a voice in government spending.

Management is out of touch with their people. Professionalism in management is responsibility. Government must provide competent management, and their actions must be just and ethical.

People are resources. Civilians should not be expendable, but should be treated with a certain amount of dignity. DND should optimize their resources. Civilians have the know-how. DND should believe the expert in any job is the person performing it, not an outside contractor whose objective is to increase his profit margin.

Let's get back to basics and become more people-oriented, improve morale, manage my objectives, incorporate the values and practices of the organization, and solve the leadership dilemma.

Leaders must believe in people. People are people, not just personnel. Let us remain productively employed, and I ask you to enhance our quality of life.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. If you just want to stay there for a second, there might be some questions.

Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Gladys, talking about ASD, you've given us a number of recommendations, and I wonder if you could expand on your recommendations.

Ms. Gladys Maguire: Well, ASD is costing the taxpayer money. Nobody really knows how much. We just have to look at Goose Bay to see what's happened to civilians and employees. It's creating hardship, it's creating stress, and it's not leading anywhere. It really is not.

We have the expertise within DND to change. The problem is we have military rules, regulations, policies, and procedures that are 20 years old. We can cut time and we can cut expenses, but we have such a rotation of NCOs continually that they all want to do what the book says. We can do a good job if we are allowed to do it. Civilians must feel free to make suggestions and to use initiative.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you. And when you talk about decentralizing operations internally, could you give me some examples or specifics?

Ms. Gladys Maguire: Well, there's budget per base, for instance. In the chain-of-command bureaucracy, a corporal has to go to a sergeant, a sergeant to a warrant officer, a warrant officer to a captain, a captain to a major, and then sometimes he has to go to Ottawa for his answer. The poor guy at the bottom, a month later, is still waiting for an answer. If decisions were made internally, if we could cut down the chain of command, if we could cut bureaucracy, we could cut costs.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So here's your allotment of money; now use it to the best of your ability on your own.

Ms. Gladys Maguire: Exactly.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. Thank you.

• 1950

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: I have a question with respect to one of the comments in your conclusion. You say “management is out of touch with people”. Are you referring to base management or DND management?

Ms. Gladys Maguire: I'm talking about all management with too much bureaucracy, and saying listen to us.

ASD is a prime example. We can cut costs. We can do a better job than a contractor, there's no question. Why increase a contractor's profit margin? He's inexperienced. All we're saying is it's costing us money to go ASD. There's no question.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I have a couple of questions. Can you maybe elaborate on your statement that compensation is 15% to 18% lower than the military performing the same job-related functions? That obviously—

Ms. Gladys Maguire: That's right. Contrary to what the military believe, it's true.

A corporal does the same job basically as a CR-3. In my department they do. A corporal is paid $10,000 more than a CR-3, yet we're doing the same job functions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Okay.

There's an interesting idea: “provide a compensation package to reconnect families upon return from deployment”. Can you explain that a little bit? That's an interesting idea.

Ms. Gladys Maguire: Basically, you have the wives at home, let's say. They're one-parent families, basically, while their husbands are away. There's a lot of stress when the husband comes home. His mind is in Bosnia or on some of the things he has seen. The wife is busy at home with her family, maybe needs new furniture. The husband comes home. He doesn't want to hear that. He really doesn't.

In order for them to connect, give them a compensation package where they can go hop somewhere by themselves and get to know each other again.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's a good idea. Any money involved here? How much money do you think it's going to cost?

Ms. Gladys Maguire: Well, I heard a story where, when they're overseas, when they're in Bosnia, say, they are allowed approximately $1,200 to come home. If they don't come home and use that $1,200 on their air fare, they lose it. The wives are saying “Give us that $1,200 so that we can get reconnected”. It's not extra money; the money is there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I see. Okay. Right. Good idea. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Those are the formal presentations. We will go now to some people who have been waiting for quite some time to make a presentation. They didn't quite make the list this afternoon. We will start off with Captain Jim Elwood, if Jim came back.

Captain Jim Elwood (Individual Presentation): Thank you, members of the committee. My name is Captain Jim Elwood, and if you have some questions later on about finances, I'm a finance officer. I've been on base for the last five years, so I've seen some of the non-public-fund ASD cost-cutting, etc., that's gone on.

Mr. Wood, I passed you some of my notes. I assume you've had a chance to go through them. I wasn't going to read those.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Can you just take a few minutes to summarize?

Capt Jim Elwood: Sure.

Confidence: The military in general have lost confidence in some of the policy directions coming out of Ottawa.

Pay: Standardized rates of pay from posting location to posting location result in military members, predominantly lower ranks, who end up in high-cost locations and either have to take on a second job or have to go onto social assistance to be able to survive with their families. That is, I consider, a system problem that has existed for at least 30 years. It is not something new.

• 1955

Merit pay: Our military pay system is designed to reward promotion. The only way somebody can be rewarded is through promotion. Members with tech-school merit but lacking leadership skills also get promoted. The merit pay system has been looked at within the military, and from the presentations that have been made at NDHQ, I've been told that the system is not workable. The reasons? I don't know.

Future pay increases: There's nothing we can do about federal government policies in the past, where we've lost some years of pay increases. In the future, I only ask that the increases that take place are equitable and that in the higher ranks, their rate of pay is looking at the devolvement of responsibilities down to the lowest level that have taken place over the last few years. The responsibilities are going down.

Married quarters: The quality of married quarters is quite widely varied throughout the CF. In one MQ here in Kingston you could take a sheet of paper, drop it down the wall, and it would shoot halfway across the floor. Nice air-conditioning.

Our military system is designed to assist members' rent— renting married quarters, renting downtown. There is some assistance for people who buy. At the end of a career, the person who has bought is in better standing to be able to live with a pension. One military member I interviewed was quite shocked that at the end of a 33-year career, his $5,000 in the bank was not sufficient to live on.

Visible accountability: We've had some rumours, and some proven situations, where senior members have not been held accountable for their actions, but the junior rank can be punished. The case is very, very clear. In the decisions of senior ranks, members are allowed to walk away, with pension, with full rank, and nothing is said.

Care of the injured: I find that with the reduction in the number of people we have in the military, there are less and less people to watch out for those who are injured and could fall through the cracks. Some units have a regimental system, and the regiment can look out for them. There are very many who do not belong to a regiment. They do not have godfathers to look out for them to make sure they're taken care of. That is a reality of the downsizing we've gone through.

A large number of activities on bases are a split responsibility between public and non-public. With reductions in the dollars coming through on the public side, non-public activities are increasingly required to cough up full dollars. It's either that or the activity doesn't happen.

• 2000

My personal recommendation is that if we are going to have these activities, either allocate a slice of dollars at the most senior levels or admit they aren't going to happen at the lower levels. Make it soon.

On non-garrison units, a whole bunch of small units and detachments is not close to a garrison. Garrisons are designed and responsible to provide quality-of-life support to the members. Our system right now does not recognize the non-garrison units in providing support to them. That again has existed for many years. It's not something new.

Within the umbrella of NPF and PSP, messes are created a little differently. Reserve units have the messes within their buildings. They are secure until the units close down. Within regular force units, messes are in external buildings. Buildings can be torn down.

What is the purpose of messes? They are used for professional development and some social issues. There is a significant problem that has already started within the CF and will be continuing. In Petawawa, for instance, the officers' mess is only opened for internal functions. That's a reality of the changes.

With the exception of messes, reserves are our poor cousins when it comes to PSP, or personnel support programs. In many ways the support does not exist for them.

On the passage of information to the families, many spouses are the organizers of family activities. With electronic passing of information, information overload and fewer people to do work around the office, some of this information is not getting passed out. That again is affecting the quality of life for individual families.

On frequency of moves, spouses who follow the members on postings are affected in the types of jobs they can do. It affects children. It's not very different from some of the civilian companies that have very frequent moves, but it does significantly affect our members, their families and spouses.

That's a quick summary from my notes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Captain.

Are there any questions? David Price.

Mr. David Price: You talked about the regimental system and said if they are not with a regiment they don't have anybody to look after them. You also talked about support from non-garrison units. I'd just like to clear those two things up.

Capt Jim Elwood: A new term for a base is going into garrison.

Mr. David Price: So it's a fixed unit like we have here.

Capt Jim Elwood: CFB London was closed down and is now a garrison support unit. The unit can be of any size.

CFB Toronto was closed and became a garrison. There's talk about CFB Kingston closing down and becoming a garrison support, so therefore a fixed—

Mr. David Price: The regiment part?

Capt Jim Elwood: Some units, for instance PPCLI, have a regimental association among their three units.

Mr. David Price: The regiment is divided up and is on three different bases or garrisons. Do you call them garrisons then?

Capt Jim Elwood: The three different brigades are located in a garrison.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you.

• 2005

I wanted to touch on just one thing. We're obviously looking at some way of getting people more money, and we're obviously looking at different ways of trying to do it. Explain the merit pay a little more, if you can.

Capt Jim Ellwood: You have promotion by rank and you have a pay increase by merit. Increase by merit could be that your commanding officer believes you've done a better job and you go up to the next level. If you've completed a certain level of technical training, you go up to the next level. As soon as you have reached the highest level of technical merit within your rank, you're considered an expert within that field.

That doesn't say you don't have leadership skills. You may not want to have the leadership responsibilities. I know of some corporals on the transportation side such that all they ever want to do is drive trucks. They don't want to push paper, they want to drive trucks. One corporal I talked to retired. What did he do? He went and drove a truck. That's all he wanted to do.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Great. Thank you for coming back. I appreciate it very much.

Next, Steve Waller.

Mr. Steve Waller (Individual Presentation): Good evening, committee members and Mr. Chair. This is just an impromptu presentation. There's nothing too formal. I was sitting in the audience this afternoon and after listening to everybody I felt compelled to come up. I realize over the course of your tour you've been subject to a barrage of personal and professional attacks on the credibility and nature of this committee, but I'm convinced you're working in our best interests, helping us to better our quality of life, and I thank you for that.

There are three areas I would like to speak on, education, pay, and housing. About education, my concern is that the push for education in the Canadian Armed Forces is directed primarily towards commissioned officers. For non-commissioned members the opportunities are fairly limited.

Basically, three programs are available for university upgrading. Those are the university transfer program for non-commissioned members, the university transfer program for officers, and then, through the CFAO, financial reimbursement for out-of-pocket expenses.

The UTPNCM, which is the non-commissioned members' university program, is basically an officer development program, where for members of the NCM ranks each year there's a competition in which certain specific trades are opened up. If one of those trades appeals to you and you meet the requirements you can apply, and if you're accepted you leave your current occupation and begin a new life in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Unfortunately, what you're doing is giving up everything you worked for during the last nine years. If nothing is left in the UTPNCM selection, i.e. a trade you're interested in, then your opportunity for subsidized university education is forfeited. Your only recourse is through the CFAO reimbursement program, in which you go out, you pay your tuition and your books up front, and then once you complete your course you take your transcripts and your marks to the selection office and submit a claim. The claim disappears for three months, and then about three months later you get a lump sum on your pay cheque. Then you're taxed on that. So out of $1,000 you see maybe $200.

Then on your T-4, your gross income tax or your taxable income for the year is increased because you have this added onto your pay. The more courses you take— it bumps up your taxable income and then you get taxed at the end of the year. However, you can claim it back through income tax.

• 2010

It's just a very long exhausting road to get a university education, plus the fact that you have your present job that you're working at full-time, as well as trying to parallel it with a university education, whereas in other programs you leave and go to university full-time. It makes it very difficult.

My main concern is with the fact that there is no program directed specifically at members of the non-commissioned ranks. If I want to get an education, a university degree, why can't I stay as a non-commissioned member in my current position and go out and obtain my degree, just like commissioned officers can? They have already been commissioned officers with specific trades. They get the UTPO. Mind you, it is very selective, as we heard this afternoon. However, they go out, obtain their degrees and come back and maintain the same jobs that they were doing beforehand.

If I have 10 years in my current job and I want to upgrade myself educationally, I don't want to give up that previous 10 years just for the sake of a university education. With that in mind, where's the incentive for a person like myself and many like me who are out getting a university education to stay in the Canadian Armed Forces if there are no promotions and no pay incentives and if self-enhancement possibilities are severely limited?

If the CF developed a program whereby enough NCMs could obtain a degree and remain in their current position, that would enhance and encourage a reciprocal agreement between the CF and its members. The forces would thereby be investing in a quality product, in quality members for the future. And if, three or four years down the road, a commissioned position comes up, that person already has a university degree so he or she doesn't have to go through all the hoops at that time.

If the NCM climbs the promotion ladder and obtains a senior rank as an NCM, he's still in a leadership role where a university education would be quite beneficial. So regardless of the fact that it's a corporal getting the university education at the time, there is potential for leadership and for future leadership positions down the road.

If I complete a degree at my expense and on my own time, out of pocket, with no prospect of promotion and no pay increase, then the outside world becomes very attractive. In today's world, in 1998, I'm sorry, but a university degree is an essential requirement if, for whatever reason, downsizing and cutbacks continue and I find myself looking for a job on Civvy Street at 30 to 35 years of age.

At the current rate I'll be eligible for retirement in 11 years, at 41 years of age. At least if I have a degree, I'm marketable at 41 years of age. With a degree I can go back into society and carry on in a second career. Right now the promotions in my trade are basically at a standstill, so in 11 years— A feasible pension and an equitable retirement package are not within my grasp, because that only gives me 11 years to climb two ranks— if I'm lucky— and then it's still based on your best six years, so pension-wise it's not a very bright outlook from my perspective.

With regard to housing, when I came here I was single and I had a dog—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Steve Waller: —not married, no kids, but I was severely limited in where I could live. Because I was single I wasn't entitled to a PMQ at the time, and because I had a dog, I couldn't stay in single quarters. Mind you, I would not want to stay in single quarters, because I've done my time, as they say, in single quarters, and to go from a house back to that— it's not an adequate living facility from my perspective.

My only options were to buy a house or rent a house, and I'd paid enough rent over the years, so I took the plunge and bought a house. However, because of that, if you put together the mortgage payment, the car payment, university tuition, the cost of living, taxes and everything else, a pay cheque of $35,000 a year gets used up pretty quick and doesn't leave you a lot of room for emergencies such as cars breaking down, engines going, your roof, your furnace, whatever. You're at a very tight limit.

• 2015

With regard to that, on a single income— I'm sure all you are homeowners— to qualify for a mortgage based on a $30,000 to $35,000 T-4 slip puts a big ceiling on what's available out there. You find yourself getting forced into a home that you don't really want but it's the only thing you can afford, and then you're stuck with trying to sell it three or four or five years down the road.

Granted, $35,000 a year is basically the average corporal's wage, depending on incentives, and spec pay, and all that. I realize it is a liveable wage. People are living on it, people have lived on it, and people will continue to live on it.

There are a lot of things, like private's wages, for instance, having come up through the ranks and having done the time at $20,000 to $22,000 to $25,000, looking forward to that big promotion to corporal where you're finally at a living wage versus a poverty wage. That people in 1998 are living on $23,000 a year is ridiculous, especially when they're in their career. They're not working part-time and going to school, or doing whatever. That's their career, and their claim to fame is $23,000 a year and then slowly climbing up.

We are part of the federal government, just as well as many other aspects of the federal government. You have the RCMP, Correctional Service Canada, Customs; you name it. We are by far the lowest-paid federal employees on that scale. Sure, if you balance out the bottom private to the top general, take the average wage and compare it, maybe do statistical evaluation and general comparison, it might look good on paper, but in reality it's not there.

I know for a fact we don't get paid overtime. We get compensated with maybe time off and certain other little bonuses, but the amount of hours worked overtime to financial compensation is basically non-existent.

I know no other members of any other federal department that would tolerate that. If they work ten hours overtime, they get paid double-time, which is a pretty good penny, because they get paid, I'd say, anywhere from $10,000 to $20,000 above what we're making, especially in jobs that are directly comparable between the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP, Correctional Services and other facets such as that, heavy equipment operators, and so on. They just wouldn't tolerate that. They have unions, I guess you could call them, within their ranks to ensure equitable payment and treatment for their members. I believe we should get the same.

Just off the top of my head, from looking at other departments and other agencies, my proposal on the pay structure would be that the base pay in the Canadian Armed Forces be $32,000 a year, which is the average corporal's wages, for privates that are starting out and that the scale go from $32,000 to $42,000 from private to master corporal, and $42,000 to $52,000 from sergeant to chief warrant officer, which I think is an equitable level of pay incentive pay increases over time and promotion, and comparable for position and leadership to officers ranks where you have basically a chief warrant officer making the equivalent to a captain where, in the scheme of things, they're basically equivalent on the food chain for leadership, seniority and the whole nine yards.

I have chosen this environment as my career. I have a lot of time invested into it and a lot of pride invested into my job. But I'm scared to have a family because right now I can't afford it. It's causing tension at home because my other half wants a family and she can't understand from my perspective as the so-called breadwinner or bread-earner that it's tough to say sorry, we can't afford it. Financial burdens cause a lot of stress in the household. And if you couple that with a new baby, as I'm sure a lot of people in this audience are well aware, it just makes things worse.

• 2020

A lot of it boils down to how you feel as a person. If you feel satisfied at work, you're going to feel satisfied at home. If you work hard, you should be able to receive compensation for that. It should show that you're being appreciated for your work.

What I ask is the typical: Don't ask us to do anything you guys wouldn't do yourselves. Don't ask us to live in houses you wouldn't live in yourselves. Don't ask us to perform jobs for pay that you wouldn't do yourselves. It's just a basic cut-and-dried approach.

I'm no superhero and I'm no putz by any means, for lack of a better word. I'm just a guy who's chosen a career. My path is laid out in front of me one step at a time, and I'm trying to make the best of it that I can. But I feel I just keep getting smacked in the face and pushed back every time I try to go forward. It's brick wall after brick wall. The incentives just aren't there any more, and I'm on the brink of saying why bother? But I'm not like that. I'm here, I'm in for the long haul, and I want to make the best of it.

I believe the people at the bottom of the pay scale should be able to live comfortably, not paycheque to paycheque. That's one of the main concerns I have.

I've heard a lot of things in the news, and I know the news media is inflated and biased and takes positions and sides about the ever-popular pay incentives for the top and stuff like that. That's life, and I can appreciate that, because they have started at the bottom and worked their way up, and obviously there are people making these decisions. However, it's very discouraging for people like me at the bottom, who are scraping together everything they can just to survive, and then hear of these astronomical bonuses. If I would get one of those every five years, I would be happy, never mind every year or every two years, or whenever they're getting it.

I don't know how valid this is, but another thing I just heard recently is there are certain occupations in the military where that specific occupation is going to get a $30,000 pay increase to promote them to stay in the military rather than to get out.

A voice: —

[Inaudible—Editor]—

Mr. Steve Waller: I didn't say it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Waller: That, in my mind, not only puts up a big rift between the NCMs, who are making $30,000 or $32,000 a year plus, but also the officer ranks, where you have officers of equal rank doing— You can't compare job specs, because they're different jobs, for obvious reasons, and there are different requirements for each one. But to have one captain making $52,000 a year and another captain making $82,000 a year, for basically no substantial reason other than to keep the $82,000-a-year guy around longer so he doesn't go out and join Civvy Street, is in my mind going to be detrimental to morale, especially when the big issue is money, money, money: “We don't have the money to give you guys a raise, yet here's $30,000 to $70,000 bonus or pay increases just so you guys don't quit on us.”

It's not my intention to put up barriers or dividers, segregate ranks, and point fingers. If the money is there, it should be redistributed to the bottom, especially to the people who need it to just maintain a comfortable living, never mind a lavish lifestyle where they need a $200,000 house and a new car every two years. You have guys living in a $500 apartment because they can't afford a down payment on a house. It's just a never-ending circle.

So the bottom line to morale is basically this, and you're just as aware of it as I am. It starts with pay and adequate pay, and then from there it's just a big, vicious circle that's just going to carry on. You pay us, we're happy, we work hard for you, and in the long run we maintain our UN status as the top country in the world.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Steve.

I think there are some questions. We'll start with David Price.

• 2025

Mr. David Price: Thank you for your presentation.

We'll go back to the education part. You were talking mostly about university.

By the way, can I ask what you do in the forces right now?

Cpl Steve Waller: Does it matter?

Mr. David Price: No, not really.

Cpl Steve Waller: I'm a corporal in the military. Regardless of what my occupation is, I'm in a corporal in the military.

Mr. David Price: Okay. You'll see what I'm getting at.

Let's say, then, you're in the trades right now. You want to upgrade a trade or skill continuously rather than go the university route. Right now, what are the forces doing to help you out in that line?

Cpl Steve Waller: If it's a community college program, your only recourse is CFAO financial reimbursement on top of your regular job. As far as I am aware, there is no procedure or program such that I could go out, if I were a vehicle tech, and get my class A mechanic's licence and then come back in the military as a—

Mr. David Price: Okay. I'm wondering because a lot of the courses given are given internally. I'll take electrician, for example, because I'm familiar with that one. An electrician trained in the forces here, not taking any outside courses but remaining internal, gets out after and goes looking for a job, and his trade is not recognized on the outside.

Cpl Steve Waller: That's my belief, yes.

Mr. David Price: Yes, I know that happens for a fact. So he has to start all over on the outside.

If you want to get your trade on the inside, you take your courses on the outside, so you're marketable afterwards, if you decide to go out afterwards. Will you be reimbursed for that?

Cpl Steve Waller: But you have to do it—

Mr. David Price: On your own time.

Cpl Steve Waller: You have to pay up front. So you have to have the money first of all.

SIFPAF loans are available up to $2,500—

Mr. David Price: What about time-wise? Can you do it during your regular time?

Cpl Steve Waller: From my experience, if your COs are supportive of it, usually they can spell you off, but the general disclaimer is that it cannot interfere with your current duties. If you have a class scheduled at 1 a.m. and a tasking comes up at noon and you're the only guy around, sorry, your job comes first. If you have to miss class, you have to miss class.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Steven, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Corporal Carl Homer.

Corporal Carl Homer (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

Members of the committee, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to address a couple of issues which I don't believe have been raised, from anything I've read so far, in any of your previous committee meetings. To me, and I think only to me, they represent something that's very important. The first issue represents quality of work. The second issue is the mission of the Canadian Forces in the future.

On my first issue, when I walked into a recruiting centre, they didn't make any big promises about how much I would be getting paid or that I would be living in a castle, so when I joined the forces I wasn't expecting anything other than the conditions I've had in pay and in my living accommodations. What they did promise me was a busy and challenging lifestyle.

Where I am right now, because of lifestyle decisions I've made, I'm actually living very comfortably. I'm living on corporal zero pay, and I have absolutely no complaints about the money I'm making.

The problem is with the promise they actually did make, which was about the busy and challenging lifestyle. I know from reading your reports from Edmonton and Valcartier that people have mentioned that the operational tempo is extremely high in the Canadian Forces and it's putting stresses on families and on members themselves. I speak as somebody who, since he got into the forces, has been screaming for tours. It seems as though positions are available for sending people over there, but the people who are really dying to go aren't always being tapped. It seems we have a resource available there. What we're seeing now is that a lot of people, especially where I work, are dying to go on one of these operational tours, and instead we're sending, for example, reservists, who are all of a sudden being paid wages they wouldn't normally be paid, whereas people such as myself are continuing to make our regular force salary and what we're doing with it is sweeping floors and doing vehicle maintenance.

Right now I have, as I said before, comfortable pay and I have a lot of time off in my job. The problem I see is that I've been in a field unit for almost two years now and in that time I've never gone to the field. The reason for that is that apparently we don't have enough money for field allowance. So as I say, instead, my time and the money they're putting into me is being spent doing maintenance jobs around work.

• 2030

Having just completed my jump course last year, I'm told that I cannot jump any more because we do not have the money to pay for a casual parachute allowance, even though I would willingly forgo that allowance if it would give me the chance to get out and under a canopy once again. So instead, all the money that's put into the training in the first place is being wasted.

Now as I say, these are choices I made as an individual; I don't expect any other members of the forces to make the same choices I did. Everybody has their own options. What it says to me is that we have a lot of untapped resources that we can make use of.

A lot of people have brought forth a lot of justifiably good quality-of-life issues, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. My only fear is that operational duties are being separated from quality-of-life issues, when in soldiering, they're one and the same thing; we can't separate the two of them.

I have a fear that the recommendations you're going to put forward will slow down the operational tempo and pace of training universally or across the board, when for some of us, our quality of life depends on those very things.

I want to be able to work hard and be proud of the work I'm doing, but right now I'm afraid that's not going to happen.

The second issue I'd like to bring forward is on the mission of the Canadian Forces. The mission of the Canadian Forces, as brought down by the 1994 white paper, was to provide a multi-role, combat-capable armed forces. Specifically, the land forces of which I am part were to provide the land forces element as multi-roled and combat-capable.

It's obvious that we're not living up to those standards. For example, when the Gulf War happened— I realize this was before the white paper— we did not have the capacity to be able to mount an effective fighting force, combat force, to be able to go in and participate in a ground war. We know that we can participate as allies, but our participation is limited because we're not living up to that combat-capable mission.

When we recently redeployed some troops to Iraq, my mother called to ask me whether I was going to be sent in harm's way, whether I was going to be invading Iraq. I could quite confidently tell her that, no, I would not be participating in any invasion of Iraq because the Canadian Forces did not have the combat capability to be able to do it.

The problem I see is the fact that we're not doing anything to change it for the future. After the Vietnam War, the U.S. army was in dire straits. Morale was low, and it was not prepared for modern war at that time. That seems pretty similar to what we're having in the Canadian Forces right now.

They did a major overhaul. This not only increased the morale of the troops, but also gave them a long-term vision and restructuring that would allow them to adapt to a future war.

We need to have somebody who's doing the planning ahead. So we're looking for what the role of the Canadian Forces is going to be in the future, and not trying to play catch-up to a 1994 white paper.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Any questions? David.

Mr. David Pratt: Just very quickly, it seems obvious that you've lost faith that the government has any intention of living up to the white paper commitments that way, right?

Cpl Carl Homer: I'm not going to say I've lost faith, it just seems that if we are looking at catching up to the white paper, that isn't enough. Is the role that's sets down in the white paper going to be what the mission of the Canadian Forces is in the future? Are we dedicated to a combat-capable force, when at the same time we're dismantling our armoured regiments? Without armoured regiments and sustainable artillery, for example, how can we ever become combat-capable?

So if the government is willing to live up to those things, I'm wholeheartedly in agreement with it. But if we're not willing to back up the white paper, then we need to look forward to a role that we actually can meet, and we need to be able to plan for the future for that role.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I just have one question, Corporal. You mentioned in the first part of your presentation that you were worried that our recommendations were going to slow down the process. Can you elaborate on that a bit? What did you mean by that?

Cpl Carl Homer: This is what I'm afraid of. When we talk of quality-of-life issues, if we're going to separate quality-of-life issues from our operational tempo and training, then going back, if your recommendations are heard and they're specifically with regard to quality-of-life issues, then the government might say okay, what we're going to have to do is take more of the defence dollar and put it toward quality-of-life issues. That means removing it from our training budget and capital expenditures, which will hurt the Canadian Forces and our morale in the long run a lot more than if you just maintain those things and improve them for the mission of the future.

• 2035

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Okay, thank you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We heard this very thing you're saying in Edmonton. We should be very careful not to reduce our capabilities.

Mr. David Pratt: I think you've raised some really significant points in this whole discussion. It's important for us to dwell on that in terms of what the role of the forces is and whether we are robbing Peter to pay Paul. I don't think that's the objective of anybody around the table here, but I'm certainly glad you raised the point.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you for coming back tonight, because I think you were on the list for this afternoon.

Next is Corporal Rob Bulger.

Corporal Rob Bulger (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen and committee members.

I have served this country for ten years— two years in the reserve and eight years in the regular forces. Please excuse me if I'm not politically correct. I didn't have much time to prepare a brief. I was here this afternoon and figured I'd give some input on this. If you bear with me, I will try to make my points as clearly and quickly as possible. I have some general points on the forces, and some personal points after that.

Since Somalia, our troops within our squadrons and regiments have seen so much propaganda from NDHQ— it's almost incredible at times— on how to be a proper soldier, what leadership is, and new definitions to clearly mark the way for us. The only problem is the same people who caused the problem with it in the first place are the ones making these definitions for us.

I commend you on your support for us and your commitment to us to try to get something done. It is very important. But while this committee sits here and and goes around the country, the National Defence Act, which is what we regulate ourselves by, has been changed. The powers of punishment for us, the non-commissioned members, have been increased. I can now be fined up to 60% of my pay for committing an offence as slight as being late for work, or if somebody decides my hair is too long.

The master corporal, our first leadership role, is the person we have to look up to who's the link between the junior ranks and the senior ranks. He's the guy who cuts the red tape of the senior NCOs and the officers' bureaucracy that happens sometimes. These people can now be put in front of us and given extra duty and drill. These people represent us. They're the people we are striving to be, so for them to have to do extra drills, duty, and work in front of us belittles the rank.

We've heard several times that Ottawa was thinking about abolishing the rank and going to the lance corporal system it had years ago. We've heard a hundred things filter down through the ranks. That's ten times better than limiting the amount of power that rank has. If you don't like the rank, get rid of it altogether. Don't degrade it, and don't degrade the people who have it.

• 2040

Another thing I'd like to talk about is taxes. Since I've been in, every year when I'm sitting down and doing my taxes I figure I'm getting screwed somehow, and not just the way the average Canadian feels.

If I don't get my hair cut, I'll get in trouble. It's that simple. I have to do it. Now, I get $17 a month as a clothing upkeep allowance. They tell me that's for my haircuts, my boot polish, everything I need. Well, I'm sorry; I'm getting my hair cut once a week, and it's just not enough. At $8 a shot, it doesn't take long to figure out the math, even with somebody with grade 11, like me. Then there's the dry-cleaning.

Then you add on the taxes. They don't turn around and give us a clear, precise view of what we can claim on our income taxes. Their system is designed within the military bureaucracy— and when I say “their”, I mean the military itself— to confuse us. When we fill out our taxes, there's a part on it that says “work expenses”. Some guys get away with putting, under work expenses, $600, or something they feel is reasonable. They'll get away with it and nobody will question it. I tried that once, and they said, okay, here's a form you have to fill out for your boss to sign. If your boss signs it, you can claim it.

I guarantee you, you'd look long and far to find a boss who would sign that piece of paper.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Cpl Rob Bulger: The next thing I'd like to talk about is alcohol consumption within the army. It's been a problem. Yes, it's been noted that in Cyprus in 1992— I was there— we were a little out of control. When you look back on it now, for reasonable management, you can see why some of these things have been implemented, yes. But within the last while, this policy of no drinking at all whenever we go on tour, whenever we do anything, is completely ridiculous.

You're taking away my rights as a Canadian citizen. It's justifiable in some instances. When I'm in a high-pressure combat zone and I have to perform at a level that's higher than most, yes, it is understandable. But when I'm off duty, and it's time for me to relax, I should be able to have a beer and talk about how much of an SOB my boss is, the same as the average Canadian does.

The next thing I'd like to talk about is on a personal note. In 1995 I was posted in Shilo, Manitoba. We were preparing to go to Yugoslavia.

For years I had a shoulder that sometimes used to dislocate from a military soccer game when I was going through my training here in Kingston. In 1995, when we were getting ready to go— we ended up not going, but that's beside the point— I was setting up a tent on the back of one of the track vehicles. I had my hands over my head, and the pole fell. I moved quickly to get out of the way, and my arm dislocated, which it normally had a habit of doing once in a while. While it was dislocated, the pole came down, fell on my rotator cuff, and smashed it in half. I have two screws in my right arm. I attend physiotherapy, and I do pretty good with it. It's almost normal. I'm holding in there as far as my duties go.

• 2045

I had an incident about a year and half ago here in Kingston where we were out in the field and somebody had a kettle of water plugged in behind me and the kettle fell and went over my back. In the crew I was with, it was our responsibility to make sure that we weren't boiling water in the truck. It was cold and we took the short route and I paid for it. I would never expect a taxpayer to pay for that or expect any compensation for it.

I carry around the lesson learned. I'm frayed from it because it burned all the freckles off of one side of my back and it's a constant reminder not to boil water in the truck.

But as far as my shoulder goes, I gave my arm to this country. I didn't mean to; it just happened. I sent a thing in to DVA in Charlottetown for my pension and this is the response I got back from them. It was a first-time submission as a young corporal. I thought there's somebody looking after me, I can handle this. I put in the submission and the response I got back from them was that your paperwork's not in order. There is nothing to confirm your duty status at the time of the incident. Request denied. This is even though when I handed it in it had a written summary of what had happened, that I was setting up a penthouse tent in the back of a track vehicle, etc.

The person who was reading this must have had absolutely no clue about anything involving the military. What do they think I do? Do they think I come in on my weekends to sent up tents on the back of track vehicles? I'm dedicated, but I'm sorry, I'm not that dedicated.

I gave up. I left it alone. I bitched, I complained. I became less of a soldier than I was before. I battled back with it and I'm standing here now, but even as I stand here I'm five minutes away from putting my release in because physically and mentally I can't do it for that much longer.

Before I go much further I would like to ask a really weird request of this panel. I have a muscle shirt on. I'd like to approach this panel with this shirt off so you can know what I'm talking about. Can I have that permission?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Why not?

Cpl Rob Bulger: You also will notice, ladies and gentlemen, that I have a Canadian flag on my left arm too.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I saw that.

Cpl Rob Bulger: My brother was in the service. He sits home in Prince Edward Island now. He was released last April. He was a master corporal in the airborne during the terrible Somalia incident. My brother was Colonel Mathieu's driver over in Somalia, and the horrors he has he has to keep in his head for most of his life.

My mom and dad have seen one son come home disabled, drawing the disability pension, because the army screwed up and took out a piece of his collarbone, which they thought would relieve some of the pressure he was feeling from his arm. They weren't quite aware of why that was happening. I don't want to get into this, because it's a separate case and obviously it worked out in his favour because he's getting disability for it.

• 2050

And I'm looking at following the same route. I'm trying to hold on here, but the system is not protecting me. The military system that sat here today is not designed to help members who have hurt themselves get back on their feet. It's just “you hurt yourself, you sink or you swim”. I'm swimming right now, but at best, I'm treading water.

All I've asked the army for since I've been in is a French course. It's the only thing I asked for. I asked for some time to heal properly without being exposed to duty again. I'm a radio operator, and I'm bouncing off of trucks every day, putting up antennas, lifting radios and doing whatever. That's my job. I don't bitch about that, but at the same time, there are different employments, and some are easier on you and some are harder. If you reach a time in your career where you need that rest, somebody should be looking out for you to make sure that happens. That hasn't happened.

When I asked my career manager about it, after the first one said I was going on a French course and lied to me right to my face and I didn't go— anyway, I asked this guy and he said, “You know, Corporal, it's kind of funny”— this was an off-the-record type of thing— “but there's nothing really set up for somebody who really wants one for the reasons that you want it.” There are plenty of things set up for somebody who wants one for a politically driven reason, for rank, who needs it for the rank level, for whatever— but somebody who just wants one to be able to talk to his average friend who happens to be from Quebec, there isn't really a system set up there, unless it's a merit system.

When he asked me why I wanted it so bad, I looked at him and I told him that I felt Quebeckers deserve to have me tell them in their own language that I don't agree with separation. They should be able to know that I understand their point.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Cpl Rob Bulger: This afternoon one of the members asked, “What do you think will happen with this committee?” Unfortunately, with the best intentions, I know— The thing I'm scared of is that we might witness the government try to pull what Ralph Klein just tried to pull in Alberta with the mentally disabled or handicapped people who were sterilized years ago. The government basically tried to pull that notwithstanding clause on them and say “It wasn't our government and this is all you get.” That's what I'm afraid this government is going to do. I'm afraid it's going to say “These guys are pretty hungry right now, so give them 5% and they'll shut up.” That's what I'm scared of.

I'm tired of playing pokey-chest. I can't do it any more. I'm running out of steam. There was room for me in the army before. There was room for me when I got in. They wanted somebody who was young, who didn't necessarily agree with everybody, who wasn't a yes-man.

But now, when they're talking about punishing your leaders in front of you and everything else, what are they talking about? They're talking about a platform for a yes-man. They're talking about people who don't have an opposing view or who don't want to speak out because of fear of repercussions.

There was always room for me to raise my hand and say, “Sir, I don't agree with that for the following reasons—” and try to do it in a diplomatic manner. I've been passed over now for long enough that it's hardly worth it for me any more.

Do I want compensation for my arm? I think I'm entitled to something, not a million bucks, not whatever, but I think I'm entitled to a little more than “thanks for coming out”.

When I'm asked what you could possibly do to help me, I don't know what to say. Find me another job, maybe, so that I'm ready when I get out of here to still do something. If I keep going on at this, the army will break me. There's no system set in place to protect somebody like me who's trying their best but has physical limitations.

• 2055

Thank you very kindly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Corporal. That was very well done.

I think we do have some questions, and we'll start with David Price.

Mr. David Price: Actually, it's not a question. It's a little comment relating to what you spoke about at the beginning, the military justice system. It just happens that this afternoon in the House, Bill C-25 on the military justice system is starting to go through. It will be coming to us to study, but there are a lot of other items in that. I think you will see that it could help you out. It's not as much as we would like to see in it, but there are a lot of items there that came out of Somalia.

Cpl Rob Bulger: Yes, sir. The only problem with it is that if it's given into the hands of a committee—

Mr. David Price: This committee.

Cpl Rob Bulger: —okay, this committee— to decide, I'm sure something will happen about it and it will get approached, but if it's given in to the Chief of Defence Staff, no, it won't.

Mr. David Price: A lot of the recommendations came from the Chief of Defence Staff to start with.

Granted, personally I would like more in it, but still, it's a good start.

Cpl Rob Bulger: Sir, what a lot of people were trying to tell you this afternoon was that we have got really good at noticing people, our leaders, who have developed a system of pretending they're doing something but doing nothing. If you ask them, they'll tell you that we love them, but they'll issue a statement to us, saying that we can't say anything about them.

But since I was given—

Mr. David Price: You're here now saying something about them, and we're here.

Cpl Rob Bulger: The only reason I am, sir, is because my CO told me the other day that if I did, there would be no repercussions. So I'm here.

Mr. David Price: That's why we're here, too, and we're glad to see you here. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any more questions? David?

Cpl Rob Bulger: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you.

Lory Allen.

Ms. Lory Allen (Individual Presentation): Members of the committee, I'm here this evening not only as a wife, but as a concerned mother.

About the rent issue, I believe we should pay the same rent Canada-wide. My husband's pay doesn't change when we're posted, so I believe the rent shouldn't.

As for PMQs, where does one start? My family has never had as many visits to the doctor as we have since moving here. My kids are constantly ill with colds, ear problems, and so on. I could go on.

We've had the local fire department over because we could smell something burning, which, after pursuing the housing people for months, turned out to be faulty wiring in my bedroom light switch.

There was an open pit about one foot deep in our backyard that had filled with water. My son, who was a year and a half old, got stuck in it. Thank God he didn't turn his head over, because he would have drowned. It was filled in after a number of neighbours complained over a period of time, approximately two months. Housing's reply to the calls was “We're aware of the problem and we'll get on to it as soon as possible”. When is “as soon as possible”, when someone drowns or someone dies?

Personally, I liked it better when housing was taken care of by military personnel, rather than civilians who go home to their warm and safe houses and don't have a clue of what PMQ life is like.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Woods): Thank you very much, Lory.

We've been here for two hours. Let's take a ten-minute break, and then we'll get back to hearing the rest of the people who want to make presentations.

• 2100

• 2117

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We apparently missed a lady. We apologize for that. We would like to hear from Michelle Foreman.

Sorry about that, Michelle.

Ms. Michelle Foreman (Individual Presentation): No problem. It got rectified.

I'm a military spouse, a mother, and an herbal therapist. That's exactly how I classify myself. I am definitely a military spouse first and foremost. I'll make a couple of points as an herbal therapist. Then I have some extra little ones because I've been here all day and I've been listening to some stuff.

DND has a campaign called Strengthening the Forces. It started to be implemented in May 1995. However, here at CFB Kingston it is rarely used. This campaign promotes active living, physical fitness, nutrition, healthy weight, stress management, smoke prevention and cessation, alcohol and other drugs, safer sex, and suicide prevention. This information is passed down from the base commander to the COs of all the units. Then it is up to the COs to have lectures on these issues or not.

We boast to have one of the better military forces around, and in fact while in the field the Canadian military is often considered by many other countries to have the better IMPs, unfortunately we seem to be focusing on taste more than on nutrition. The CFB Kingston food officer is not a dietitian. If you compare the nutritional quality with that of the food of the RMC, whose food officer is a dietitian, you will find a large difference in the nutritional quality of the choices they offer the cadets versus the choices they offer the members. If we want a healthy military, we must start with nutrition. Hippocrates said it best: let thy food be thy medicine and thy medicine be thy food.

The CFB Kingston messes are highly renowned for their food choices. The joke on the base is if it's not deep-fried, you won't find it in the mess. I don't believe that is how bad it is. However, my husband and I did go to the mess on Friday night for St. Patrick's Day. They served us poutine, which is French fries, gravy, and cheese; chicken wings that were deep-fried and with all kinds of other stuff on them; Caesar salad drowned in dressing; creamy clam chowder; and as dessert an assortment of pastries and squares. I didn't see fruit of any kind there. I didn't see anything of nutritional value. And I didn't have a choice.

The fare of the mess is becoming more and more focused on quality of taste and making sure everybody will like it rather than on being creative and finding foods that are not only delicious but nutritious.

• 2120

The base food officer is no longer required to be a dietitian, as I said, and this is where part of the problem lies: poor training and a lack of interest to change things back to healthy choices. We are continuously downsizing the forces without looking at the impact on our members. Reducing the amount of dietitians will affect us, because our soldiers and officers are being deprived of some of the basic nutrients, and in turn we are finding more acute and chronic illnesses in the forces.

Are we looking for a strong and healthy military that we can be proud of, or are we settling for mediocrity because of budget restraints?

We seem to be trying to feed picky eaters, and it confuses me a bit. I have two young sons. If my sons decided that all they were going to eat was junk food, do you think that, as a mother, I should let them? No. It's up to me to ensure that they are learning healthy snack choices and that they know how to have a proper and balanced diet. The military seems to be bowing down to the demand of picky eaters and ignoring the bigger problems that come with these choices.

I have a couple of friends in the audience who are vegetarians, and in the boxed lunches they are served, a vegetarian boxed lunch normally consists of salmon or pepperoni. The last time I checked, vegetarians didn't eat these kinds of things.

That's about all I have on that particular topic. If we don't start to make choices and allow these people in the military to have healthy food choices and know what is a healthy food choice, in the long term there will be some pretty big problems.

I have a couple of other points, and I'll make them briefly.

I have a friend who's a military wife. Two weeks ago she did meet with the minister, but was not able to speak. They figured out that her husband has been away eight months this year in total. He has not had any compensation. If he had gone to Somalia for six months, he would have gotten financial compensation of some sort for it. However, he has no compensation, and they are having some severe marital difficulties because they are no longer connected to each other.

This is becoming common, because our men are so double-, triple-, or quadruple-tasked, they've had it. It's incredible.

I'm using him as an example because they're dear friends of mine. He has become very specialized, because there's nobody else in the military who can do these other things, because we've downsized so much. When he goes away to do a lecture, he's told while he's away, “Oh, by the way, you're home for 12 hours when you get back, and then you're going to be sent out again.” What happened to downtime?

During the ice storm a lot of the guys got time off. I know my husband got time off. The problem is when does he get the time off? When can he take the time off? People are getting tasked on all these different extra things because we don't have the members in the forces any more, and they don't even get the time off that they probably are entitled to, because they don't have it. They don't have time to take.

One other big pet peeve of mine is this. Once my husband joined the military, his vote— which should really appeal to all of you— He has the choice of either voting in the constituency he is in, the riding he is living in, or voting in his home riding. I'm a spouse. I actually have land in New Brunswick. I'd rather vote for people in New Brunswick who are going to make a difference for me where I know I'm going to retire to. I don't have that choice. I can only vote in Kingston. It may not be in my personal best interest, but it's the only choice I have, and I don't think that's fair.

I'm an herbal therapist, so I have a career. This has probably been touched on by some other people, but I'll talk about it quickly. Every time we get posted, my business takes a kicking, because I have my own business. I have to come up with extra advertising ideas and money for advertising every time I get posted. My business takes a big drop in money. I realize it is my choice to have a business, but my other choice is not to, and obviously we all know the military hasn't been paying very well lately. So my choice is to have a business so I can stay home with my children, because that's important to me.

I just find it would be really nice if somewhere along the line somebody could help me with advertising costs. That would be a recommendation. I don't know what all the solutions are, but that would be a small recommendation for people who do have their own home businesses.

• 2125

Somebody talked about leave travel allowance earlier. I do want to elaborate a little bit on that. It got a bit confusing earlier.

Leave travel allowance is when a member goes overseas. Let's say my husband goes over to Yugoslavia. While he's in Yugoslavia, I'm entitled, or he's entitled, to x amount of time off, which I believe is two weeks. The government will pay for me to go over or for him come back, but what they pay is the cost of an economic fare from coast to coast. At the moment, that's $1,200. That's why that figure came up.

Now, my sister-in-law, who lives in Petawawa, has a husband in Yugoslavia. She has to come up with an extra $700 to see her husband. That has to come out of her own pocket, because the military isn't going to pay the extra.

He's a serving member over there. The money is earmarked. It's in the budget. If he's over there, he's allowed x amount of money.

I think the lady earlier was saying that the money is already there. In my case, my husband went overseas for six months. I don't know if I want him home in between, because that's two weeks of fighting, in all honesty. I think everybody in this room can pretty much agree. We don't connect for two weeks. It takes much longer for connection. He's somewhere else mentally from where I'm at. So I may not choose to want to see my husband in between, because it would disrupt my home more than benefit it.

What I think would happen is that the money that was allocated to begin with, that's already there, should then go to the family for them to choose to do what they want after he gets home— take some time off, go with their friends, reconnect. The reconnection is a big problem. It's why there are so many divorces and separations or whatever in the military.

I have a lot of friends who at the moment all seem to be losing that connection with their husband, and it's because the husband is away.

That's it.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Michelle.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: I also have here Strengthening of the Forces. I don't know if you have heard of this before.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, leave it with us. Give it to Michel, our researcher. Thank you.

David, any questions?

Mr. David Price: Yes, one brief one on nutrition.

Actually, what we've heard as we've gone around is that everybody is commenting that the food isn't a problem.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Food isn't a problem because it tastes good and looks good.

Mr. David Price: Yes, that's right.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: It's pub food.

Mr. David Price: It's not good food.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: It's good food. It tastes good.

Mr. David Price: It's good food but not good for you.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Exactly.

Mr. David Price: That's basically what you're saying.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: That's what I'm saying.

Mr. David Price: You have been to other bases.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Most definitely.

Mr. David Price: Do you see the same thing?

Ms. Michelle Foreman: I do and I don't. It really depends on whether or not the base foods officer is a dietitian. It really boils down to that.

Mr. David Price: That's what it comes down to.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Interesting. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Tell me, do you think members of the forces would complain if the food was more nutritious?

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Do you know what it would boil down to? If it tasted bad. Trust me; I have two picky eaters at home, and you can make carrots taste good. It doesn't take a degree in microbiology to figure this one out. It's just a matter of presentation.

As well, the members aren't informed. This is not to judge— and I'm about to stereotype, unfortunately— but a lot of members come out from the home, from their moms, and join the forces. Never are they really taught anything about nutrition. Strengthening of the Forces gives that opportunity to teach the military member why nutrition is important— and it is.

I think it would take a little bit of education. Sure, there'll still be some junk food offered, but it would be really nice to see some good stuff offered too. It's very hard to get good, healthy food out in the field. I understand that. It's not so easy to get fresh fruit and vegetables out in the field, but at least we should be able to take care of our men in garrison.

Mr. David Pratt: I think you raise some very valid points from the standpoint of overall health, more than anything else.

I have one other question on the voting issue. Let me get this straight: you must vote in the constituency in which you're based?

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Yes. Wherever I live is where I have to vote. I am not given a choice.

• 2130

Mr. David Pratt: So you're not carried along with your spouse then.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: Not at all. My husband can go up and say that he wants to vote here or there. He has that choice. It only makes sense.

I live in Ontario at the present time, but we made three moves in three years. I'm from New Brunswick, and I would love to have a vote in provincial politics in New Brunswick. I have land there. I have a reason why I want things running well in New Brunswick. I don't care personally about Ontario. I'm sorry, but I won't be here long enough.

Mr. David Pratt: I think your democratic rights are being violated.

Ms. Michelle Foreman: So do I.

Mr. David Pratt: I don't think there's any question about that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Michelle.

Captain Gil Pierog.

Captain Gil Pierog (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and fellow service members, after 37 and a half years in the military, I retire in four months, at the age of 55. I was working for the militia for the last nine and a half years after I retired from the regular force in 1988 at the MWO rank, so I came up through the ranks from private to corporal starting here.

I have listened to everybody here today since two o'clock. They talked about the PMQs here in Kingston. I lived on Normandy Crescent from 1969-71 after I came back from Germany. I can tell you that if I walked over there today into that PMQ, it's probably the same as when I left it in 1972.

Right now I live on Lundy's Lane, and there's no difference over there right now, let me tell you. I've been in there since 1993, and the only repairs I've had to my PMQ have been a hot water tank, which is now gas-operated, and a new set of windows last year, but the breeze still comes through. So like the gentleman said, when you drop a piece of paper on the floor, it doesn't go across the floor, it goes all the way upstairs.

The reason I wanted to talk here tonight is because I'm what they call an annuitant, which is an ex-member of the regular force who works for the reserves on full-time service. In 1992 or 1993, the rule was that ex-military people could work for the reserves for 330 days, take a 30-day break— they would not lose their pension— and then go back and work for the reserves again. That's the primary reserve.

A couple of years ago they changed that policy and said that annuitants, former regular force members, who want to work for the reserves can now only work 365 days, and they must take a 185-day break or they're deemed to be re-enrolled for pension purposes. Or they can work 180 days and must take a 180-day break. In that 180-day period, they can only work three days a week for the reserves, and the rest of the time they're on EI.

As you know, a regular force member who pays into EI for 20 years in the service— I paid for 27 years, but I could not draw EI after I got out of the regular force because I got a severance package, so I'm not entitled to it.

My problem is that someone in the CIC, which is the cadet instructors list, also part of the reserve force, can work for 330 days, take a break for 30 days, and go back and work for the CIC to age 65. The ex-regular force member who works for the primary reserve, can only work to age 55, and he can't work for those 330 days, take a 30-day break, and keep drawing his pension. He must take a 185-day break, or a 180-day break, all the time.

The reserves are becoming more integral to the total-force concept.

I have been the adjutant of the Princess of Wales' Own Regiment here in Kingston since 1993. I'm an administrator by trade. I was an ADM clerk, PSPT ADM, after I took my commission.

The reserves right now are so inundated that we're almost running like a regular force unit even though the majority of our people work part time. My CO is a police officer here in Kingston. Our 2IC is the crown prosecutor for the Napanee area. One of our majors is a doctor. They're not there all the time; they have their full time jobs.

We have four regular force people: a captain of infantry, a warrant of infantry, a corporal of infantry and a sergeant RMS clerk, which is the case now because of the combination of the finance trade and the administration trade. Those are the only four people posted in there.

• 2135

We do have what they call class-BA positions, where I work, which is full-time, paid at militia salary, which has been very good for the militia over the last couple of years. They just raised it to 85% of regular force pay.

We now have a gratuity package for the reserves, which is based on the same severance package as that of the regular force— seven days' pay for every year served after ten years— and also they get leave pay for class-A people. These are the people that work part-time, Monday nights through Thursday nights, and the one weekend a month. They get a 9% leave pay, which I think is a little more than civilian people get, because I know my wife works here in Kingston and she only gets 4%.

Still, the administration and the requirements of the reserves right now are so gigantic to support the regular force that all these people here who are going to retire over the next five, ten, fifteen years, who are looking for jobs in the reserve, who want to stay connected to the Canadian Armed Forces like I did when I got out, who may be looking for a job for four or five years, really don't want to get away from the forces, want to retire in an area and don't want to get posted to Wainwright, Alberta— these people cannot join the reserves and look for full-time employment any more, because as annuitants they are restricted, just because they're drawing a regular force pension.

If I went to work for DND as a civil servant, they wouldn't stop my pension after a year. If I went to work for the RCMP, they wouldn't stop my pension after a year. If I went to work for General Electric, they wouldn't stop my pension after a year.

The annuitants, the former regular force members, are being penalized just because they're working for the primary reserve, and I don't think it's right. I really don't think it's right.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): How long has that been going on, Captain? Quite a while?

Capt Gil Pierog: I came to the reserves in 1989, on a direct transfer from the regular force. I was in Petawawa at the time. I went back to Ottawa. I was stationed in Ottawa for nine years.

At that time the rule was that you could work the 330 days, take a 30-day break, and go back on, and you didn't lose your pension. That was fine. Everybody who was an annuitant loved it. I mean, you got your salary, you got your pension, you put your time in.

The money in the reserves was a lot less than the regular force. At that time I think it was about $85 a day for a captain, if you were working full time. Right now it's $110 a day, if you're working full time. The incentive pays have changed. We're now on regular force incentives. Captains go to 10%, other ranks go up to 4%, and so on and so forth, but it's only at 85%.

The reason for the 85% is that a reservist doesn't have to go on UN duties. He doesn't have to parade every night. According to the CFAO, he only has to parade 50% of the time to be effective in the regiment or whatever unit he's at.

But that was going on for years, and then for some reason somebody said “Ah, annuitants are double-dippers. The old double-dipper thing. You're drawing two salaries from the same thing”.

I have a friend who just retired from the civil service, age 65. I worked for him when he was a warrant officer here in the orderly room on the Vimy side when I came back from Germany in 1968. I was a corporal then. He retired from the regular force and went to work for the civil service, and ran the CR here at CFB Kingston until he retired about a year and a half ago. He was working for DND, drawing a regular force salary, and paying into the civil service pension. Now he's drawing a regular force pension, a civil service pension, and all the rest of it. If that's not double-dipping, then what's double-dipping?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): It's probably triple-dipping.

Capt Gil Pierog: It's tripple-dipping.

But it seems that the annuitants, the former regular force members, are the only ones who are getting hit with this. Nobody else is. It's affecting— There are so many people out there who want to join the reserves.

I do the SCAN seminars here for the base. I come up and talk about the reserves, the availability of positions, what people should do. Should they get out? Should they go to the SHR— a supplementary holding list? I tell the people that there are opportunities in the reserves, but it turns a lot of them off.

The reserves are losing a lot of knowledge, professionalism, and dedication that could be used now, because we have people in Bosnia. I have two people from our regiment over there now. I have four more in Petawawa who are training now to go in the fall. We need people who can be there all the time, with the experience, because our administration is the same as the regular force administration. We do the same things— HAZMAT, WHIMS. The new PER system is applicable to the reserves. Everything that the regular force is doing, we have to do, administratively or operationally.

• 2140

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are you saying that you would like to see it go back to what it was?

Capt Gil Pierog: I'd like to see it go back that if an annuitant or a former regular force member wanted to join the reserves, he could work for the 330 days, take a 30-day break, not work at all— which you couldn't do, that was the rule— and then come back and work. And I think you'd get a lot of expertise from the regular force helping out the reserve units. And that's what they need in the reserves right now.

The reservists themselves, the people in town here, are mostly transit or they're university students, college students or high school students, and if they don't go to Queen's University or to St. Lawrence, they leave. The longest time you usually have a reservist is about 18 months. So you get them trained up to QL4, maybe corporal if you're lucky, and they're gone and you're looking for 30 or 40 more new recruits.

So you can't train the hierarchy. And in our unit at the Princess of Wales' Own Regiment, our support people are administrative clerks, financial clerks, or supply techs. They're all working here for the base because the base doesn't have the resources to run their own departments.

I have a captain and four supply techs working for ILS and I have one warrant who's a former regular force member who can only work until the end of May and then he has to take his 185-day break or he's going to get shafted. And we have to do without him when we have commitments coming up. How does my commanding officer or any commanding officer in a reserve unit run his unit working that way? He can't. It's impossible.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much.

Corporal Dave Taylor. Is David here?

Corporal Dave Taylor (Individual Presentation): I'm going to make this brief. This is very impromptu as well. I'm a hold-over from this afternoon.

We hear a lot about military family spouses, the regimental family, that sort of thing. Nobody ever really says much about the other parts of the military family— that is, those of us who do not have a spouse and those people who are single. I thought it was time that somebody mentioned to this committee that life isn't any rosier if you're single. It may look it, but if you're personnel who are single and living on this base, it's not the place to be.

I would challenge any of you on this committee at some point to take a walk through the quarters on this base and have a look around. I think they would make the PMQs look quite palatial. The rooms are, on an average, approximately eight feet by ten feet to twelve feet. I would say that's probably in line with your average prison cell. They are, I believe, designed as transient quarters and not for a private or corporal in a field unit who has approximately 400 pounds of kit to carry with him and is posted here for five years. The size one can deal with, but we also suffer the same problems the PMQ dwellers suffer from: leaky roofs, snow on the floor because the windows don't seal properly, leaking ceilings, water leaking out of live light fixtures and electrical outlets, various things like that— cockroaches, silverfish, leaking toilets.

So the environment is not only unsafe, it's also unsanitary and unhealthy. And nothing at the base level or anywhere else— I've read your transcripts from other visits, and I don't believe this point's been addressed at all anywhere. I'm sure it's probably the same across the country.

I would really like to see this committee at least make some effort to note that as single personnel we do have a job to do the same as everyone else, and we would like to be listened to, to be noticed, to not be forgotten when any development moneys are allocated on bases for improvement.

You may have noticed that there are personnel right now in the last couple of days working away on the buildings over there. Unfortunately, all the improvements are cosmetic; they're on the outside of the building so they look nice to passers-by. They don't look so nice on the inside.

• 2145

Other things I could bring up are postings, allowances, and tasks. If you're single, you are the first person who is looked at. Inevitably, if there's a job to do, it's unpleasant and it's on weekends, who gets it? The two natural disasters would be prime examples.

When I go away I have nobody to manage my affairs. I don't have a spouse to look after my finances. I don't have anybody to warm up the car every day to make sure it runs. I don't have anybody to make sure my pipes haven't burst. But I still have to go.

I went to Winnipeg and also to Montreal. I worked Friday, came home for four hours, packed in the dark, left to go to a local area with a generator for two days, came home for six more hours and then went to Montreal. When do I have time to prepare my finances when I'm told I may be away for one month, two months, four months— who knows? Am I not entitled to the same consideration as everyone else?

We would like a little bit of input on-base into the decisions that are made about our living quarters and dining facilities, basically behind our backs. This applies not only to people who are posted here but to reserves, for example, who also live here. It applies to personnel who are on imposed restrictions whose wives are elsewhere. They live here. I feel we all deserve a fair shake. We would like to be looked after properly the same as anyone else. That's all we ask.

Thank you for listening to me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you for waiting. We appreciate you taking the time to hang in there.

You're right, we haven't heard a lot about single people on bases. It's nice that you bring those concerns to our attention.

We have a question from Judi Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I thank you for raising the issue of singles' quarters.

One of the things you don't know about when you read the transcripts of the committee are the things we do between the hearings. Mr. Price and I were talking about this just after dinner. In almost every location we've been in we've visited PMQs, but we have seen the singles' quarters and I understand what you're saying. I saw some that were absolutely unbelievable and I wouldn't want anyone I knew or loved living in those kinds of quarters.

Cpl Dave Taylor: I'll put it this way, ma'am: I was a university student for four years, and my accommodations in the student residence were far superior, and I wasn't working for a living.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Exactly. I understand that. As someone once said, you probably didn't have those unwanted pets at the university that you might have in some of the facilities you're living in.

The other thing you don't see in the transcripts is that at every stop we're afforded the opportunity to sit and talk to people casually over a meal. We've heard a lot of what you've been saying today on those occasions. It's nice to finally see it on the record so other members of the committee who haven't been with us as many times can see it as well. Again, I thank you.

Cpl Dave Taylor: I'm glad to hear that you have actually seen this. I never saw any of you, I'm afraid. I was sleeping at my girlfriend's so I wouldn't freeze to death.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: We haven't seen these particular ones, but we have certainly seen them on other bases. Judging from what I've seen, I don't expect they're any different here.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Obviously, a far better choice.

Mr. David Price: You were talking about somebody to take care of your finances when you are gone like that. What do you do in a case like that?

Cpl Dave Taylor: It depends on where you work. When I went to Winnipeg I actually raised that point with one of my supervisors and was told that perhaps I could give my bank card to a friend and he could look after my stuff while I was gone. You see, that's the sort of mentality we're facing. I'm single, therefore I don't have a life.

• 2150

Mr. David Price: So actually you are quite caught. Particularly during the ice storm, when you probably didn't even have phone contact with people, say you had a car payment, for instance, or something like that. If you aren't set up automatically, the bank starts yelling at you, I imagine, rather quickly.

Cpl Dave Taylor: Yes, it's very common for single members to go away, and you have supposedly made arrangements with the pay people or whoever else, and if some sort of error is made and you're away for six months, to come home and have a very angry troop commander or squadron commander, or else a very angry bill collector calling you and saying “Why have you not paid your bills?” or “We're about to take your car.” It's not uncommon at all.

Mr. David Price: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Dave.

Cpl Dave Taylor: Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Captain Brian Farkes.

Captain Brian Farkes (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen in the audience, I'd like to thank you very much for your time. It is getting into the evening, and I thank you for taking the time tonight to hear us all out.

I do know, from a gentleman who served on a similar committee back around 1950, that with a tenacious attitude and conviction, a committee like this can get things done. I do hope you take that attitude and can get things done.

As a quick background, my name is Captain Brian Farkes. I have 16 years of experience in the Canadian Forces. I joined the reserve force and have stayed in the reserve force since. A little less than half of that time has been the normal reserve part-time work, and slightly over half has been full-time. I've worked a number of positions, the full gamut, everything from National Defence headquarters to field positions to staff positions here. I've worked in seven out of the 10 provinces.

My job right now is the branch adjutant for our communications and electronics branch. I deal with probably 7,000 people in general. So I have a fairly decent background on which to base some of my opinions.

What I'd like to do first of all is talk about what I think is a constructive idea— and I've mentioned this to one or two of the members already— something I came across on leave just a few weeks ago, when I was speaking with a Royal Australian Air Force flight lieutenant, the equivalent to one of our army captains. He told me about one of his ideas, which I think would very well increase our quality of life in the military, and that's called long-service leave.

In the Australian military, long-service leave is awarded after every 10 years of meritorious service, so after 10, after 20, after 30, and so on. It's a period of three months of paid leave over and above the usual annual leave. It forms a nice sabbatical that adds greatly to their quality of life with relatively little extra expense to the defence budget. It can be combined with other types of leave, but it must be used within a set period of time— three to five years— so that it's used up in a timely manner. This flexibility means this leave can be coordinated with a service person's career cycle, military postings, the beginning or end of a series of military operations or deployments, key times in family life, and so on.

In the Australian military they do have a very comparable means of rewarding long service as well. It's not their only recognition. They also have a long and meritorious service declaration, equivalent to our Canadian Forces declaration, and that's awarded after 15 years of service instead of our 12. But I believe the implementation of long-service leave would be a cost-effective benefit to members of the Canadian Forces.

In light of the ongoing sacrifices of normal military life made by service personnel and their families, not to mention the extra burdens of operational deployments in recent years, long-service leave would add greatly to the quality of life in the CF in a different and complementary way to salary or allowance improvements. This is not one or the other; this would complement it very well. It would recognize and compensate both service personnel and, just as important, their families for their sacrifices and hardships.

Speaking from the reserve force point of view, I also feel that within the CF, long-service leave should be awarded to the reserve force. Implementation might differ a bit, based on the different terms of service of the reserve force. For example, reserve force members on part-time service, or class A, might be able to schedule three months away from their part-time military unit without becoming non-effective or having to punctuate their service with a formal leave of absence. Pay might be awarded on a basis commensurate to what they would normally receive for their part-time service during that period of time.

• 2155

Reserve force members on full-time service, class B or class C duty, would have the same one-to-one pay for their long service leave as the regular force does, or it might be calculated to reflect the ratio of full-time to part-time service served over the previous 10 years.

In a nutshell, I think this is very feasible. I think this would be very well received, and I think that it could be awarded equitably to the reserve force and the regular force for their period of time.

I'd also like to quickly go over a couple of points in terms of other benefits or short-term service benefits that you may wish to consider or put forward for recommendation.

What we have in the Canadian military, as opposed to many other militaries, is that for the most part it's a time-for-money deal. In other words, you put in x amount of weeks or months or years and you get paid a salary. There's really no monetary incentive or any other type of educational incentive for re-enrolling, for continuation of service or for transfer from the regular force to the reserve force. You have people who stay on simply because of financial need or because they feel there's no real pat on the back for somebody who is awarded an extra period of service.

I'd like to take just a couple of moments to specifically address concerns of the reserve force. Being away on leave for awhile, I was not able to put together a formal presentation. It will be put together within about 48 hours.

For the benefit of people listening, there are just a couple of references that I will be using. In 1981 the Government of Canada tabled a document called Action for Reserves. Most of the recommendations were not implemented. And in the past year or two, 1995 or 1996, there was a report from the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves. Many of those have been implemented or are in the process of being implemented, so we're very happy with that, although many of us still have the attitude of “I'll believe it when I see it.”

Just for comparative benefit, this is a book called NATO's Reserve Forces, so we have a basis to compare reserve forces among like-minded countries.

As you may or may not know— and it has been brought up by several people just in the last few minutes— until very recently pay and compensation has been a very big bone of contention within the reserve forces. There did not seem to be any real rhyme or reason in terms of pay comparability— in terms of setting pay levels or the number of incentives for the same rank— between the regular force and the reserve force. The last report, “Restructuring of the Reserves”, recommended that reserve force pay be set at least at 85% of the regular force counterpart and that the number of incentives for the same rank be included. I think this will be very well received.

An example of what the situation has been in the past and what many members of the reserve force are still used to is this. I'll use the pay level of a corporal, simply because it's been used several times. It's roughly $35,000, $36,000 or $37,000. If you have a reserve force sergeant working full-time or even on a daily basis, he or she would make— until these changes were made— roughly $28,000 to $30,000 a year. A reserve force warrant officer would make slightly more at $33,000 to $35,000, and a reserve force captain would hit the glass ceiling at $36,200.

We had many people— and I know of many people personally— who have worked long and hard, either on part-time duty or on full-time duty, doing the same jobs next to their regular force counterparts. It's been a very big bone of contention and a very large financial hardship, especially for those who have families or even for those who are single and looking at being able to afford to start a family or start a relationship.

I think this pay and compensation package will go over well. I just ask that in the future the committee keep a good eye on pay, compensation and other benefits to make sure that this policy does stick.

• 2200

Also included has been a retirement gratuity similar to something that's been included for the civil service. The only bone of contention some of us have in regard to that is that it took until the end of the pay freeze for it to be implemented for us, whereas for the civil service they were able to implement it in the middle of the pay freeze several years ago. They were also able to change some of their pay and compensation. So we waited a little longer than our civilian counterparts in that regard.

I'd like to reiterate what a couple of people have already mentioned. Over the past 10 years, the reserve force has been called on more and more to have volunteers come out and serve on different operations, whether it be within Canada or the UN or operations close to war, and the Gulf War, as a matter of fact. The PSP, the personnel services package, or the support packages leave a lot to be desired.

I won't go into a lot of details, but if you do have questions, I can answer some of those.

I think the rest of my comments really have to do with, in the larger context— and this is with regard to both the regular and the reserve force— morale, confidence, and trust. Without this there is no real quality of life within the forces, I think most people would agree.

We in Canada, I believe, have had a challenge with our military service disability and relations with the public, at least since the 1960s, for a number of reasons. Very quickly, we're a large country and we have a small force. It makes sense to have our bases away from the public, out of sight, where we can actually do our training effectively. The problem is, over time the Canadian public has lost view of who we are until we make the headlines for good or for bad.

I can provide some of my own examples. In the 1980s, in my military uniform I was mistaken for a bus driver, a service station attendant— let's see— a purser on a British Columbia ferry line, and an American soldier. I figured that last one topped the list. This was in downtown Vancouver. I was in service uniform one evening after duty. Some people are going, “You're in Vancouver, wearing a uniform?”

At any rate, I got into a conversation with a young lady who was in university. She asked what part of the United States I was from. I pointed to my shoulder flash, which said “Canada”, and told her I was in the Canadian army. She said, with all honesty, she didn't know we had an army.

Even here in Kingston— and I've been in the forces since 1982— where we're relatively integrated with the population living next door, I think most people would agree, although maybe more in the 1980s than now, that there is still a bit of a division, the townies versus the military. It used to be the case that you couldn't go into town on certain days or not wear your uniform, because you'd probably get into a fight of some type.

It's not as bad now, but we still had a similar case a couple of years ago. The Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, which formed the first all-Canadian military units here in Kingston 125 years ago, were invited in to do a display and for celebrations. When it was found out that they were actually going to deploy some of their weaponry where people, especially children, could see it, the city council banned that. They turned around eventually and realized they had made a mistake, but that's just an idea, I think, of the division that's gone on.

I think part of our concern within the military is how we're perceived by the public. I think there are some very simple ways to address this other than doing what a lot of other European countries have done, which is universal conscription in service. That won't go over here, that's for sure. But we can do things such as having an ongoing, but low-key, recruiting campaign so that we're in the public light all the time.

We have a small force. We're downsizing. Chances are, we've probably gone through the recruiting process of let's just open up the doors, and whoever has an interest, we'll take in, but we won't advertise publicly. We've started doing a little bit of that now, especially because we want more women in the combat arms. I think we should be doing this on an ongoing basis— low-key, public, not propaganda, but we should be there.

On the reserve side of the house we have an extra challenge in that because we do not have job security or job-security legislation, we cannot force people to sign for a specific period of time when they join. Retention is a real problem and a real challenge. Having been in that position as a recruiter, as a troop and squadron officer, I can vouch strongly about that.

• 2205

What we need in this regard is recruiting that specifically targets that. We also need a campaign similar to the one I've seen in the United States just in the last couple of weeks aimed at employers and business. Whether it's in the movie theatres as a trailer or whether it's a little commercial on TV seen at a regular time, it would demonstrate who we are in the reserve and what we do.

I won't say we have any higher or lower dedication than the regular force. We just have a different dedication because we're often balancing two or three major careers or focuses at the same time.

The American military had a commercial for the National Guard, one of its reserve components. It showed scenes from the ice storm that hit upper New York State and Vermont and so on. It talked about that and said “This is what your people do when they train. This is what they train for and this is what they do for you. So when they ask for time off, don't give them a hassle. When they ask for time off or try to explain what they do for you, please understand.”

I think something like that over and above what the Canadian Forces Liaison Council does right now with business that's visible to the entire public will really help our entire image— DND, the Canadian Forces, and the individual soldier, sailor, and airman.

In terms of morale, confidence, and trust, alternative service delivery has been spoken of before. The downsizing, civilianization, and bureaucratization of many of the facets we have here on base, in Ottawa and so on, are very counter-productive as far as I'm concerned. We may be saving some bucks, but are we being penny wise and pound foolish?

We looked at civilianizing the CF medical system in a large way. What happens if there is anything other than peace-time— a national emergency, or low-intensity conflict? Do we bring in the consultants from Kingston or Ottawa and deploy them to the field? I don't think so. If we don't have an orthopedic surgeon within the Canadian Forces right now and we're down to very low figures— I'm not sure what the numbers are, I've been quoted one or two digits— in the number of surgeons we have in the Canadian Forces right now, what the hell are we doing? Can we do anything? We may have the teeth, the artillery and the infantry, but what happens to us when we get hurt, maimed, wounded?

You've heard stories so far about deployments to Bosnia and injuries in the operation to help restore power after the ice storm and so on.

In terms of quality of service on the bases, one of my other duties— I volunteered for this— is to be the living-in representative for the officers mess. Most of the young officers who are single choose to live on base in the small single quarters. The rooms are literally nine feet by eighteen feet for the most part. We pay a small stipend for it, but some people, such as me, who are reserve force and were paid until recently $20,000 less than the regular force counterparts, cannot afford to live anywhere else.

We've had the same problems with earwigs, silverfish, cockroaches, and all the other junk. The level of service has been lowered a number of times. As the representative who's supposed to be told about this, 95% of the time over the last 18 months when it has happened I was notified after the fact. That is not good. When I'm notified by a handwritten note by the cleaner, “This is what has happened and your rents are going up”, it is not good.

I've addressed this to the new G1, Major Belovich, and he has taken a lot of steps to rectify this. We still have had a couple of cases where people went into our rooms or work was done without relevant notice, and these are our homes.

The messes are being closed down, and these are our homes as well. That's where we go to have a drink. We sit back and watch television. We let our hair down. The junior ranks want to be away from the NCOs and the officers when they do that. The NCOs want to be away from the junior ranks. They don't want to be looking after them all the time. They certainly don't want to be around us when they relax. The officers want to let their hair down among themselves.

Now everybody's into a combined eating facility. And I have to say, if the junior ranks have been eating this type of food for the last five years, I feel sorry for them. The food we had was much better and more nutritious in the officers mess, but when it was closed down in November we all came to the combined area. We're all eating together, and it's grease, grease, fat, and boiled whatever-it-is. Morale is going down, and we're pinching pennies to do it.

• 2210

Finally, the last thing that's happening right now— and I still have to find out exactly what is going on in this regard— is talk about closing down the individual social messes here on base and combining them into one facility. You might as well just civilianize us, I would say, if you do that, because we might as well just go to the bars downtown. We might as well just get away from here, because—

It's hard to explain, but it's these little things that make the difference. As they start to go, so does the quality of life, so does the confidence, so does the belief that our superiors are going to look out for us and keep our traditions alive— the traditions that work well for us. I think that's all I'll say in regard to that.

Finally, I'd like to touch on something that's rather touchy and political, but I think this is the forum. Perhaps I'll say a few things more bluntly and maybe more candidly than some people have said.

We have a problem in a lot of ways with leadership— I would say with some people in the hierarchy. I won't name names because I don't know everybody who's in the situation. I work with many of the senior officers in my branch, and I have respect for virtually all of them. In my own branch I've gotten to know them very well, and in my key position I have that opportunity.

In my time in Ottawa I have seen people exhibit great forms of leadership. I have seen people— I won't say the worst, but getting there. I've seen people basically work the politics. I've seen people work the bureaucracy. I've seen people not really give a hoot about the troops, and I've seen a lot of other people who have but who feel stymied for a number of reasons.

You are individual members of Parliament, and in my conversations with you so far I would say that I have good confidence in you personally. I would say that within the military we are very skeptical of all the political parties— the leadership, the policies, their decision-making— for different reasons. The two largest parties, who've held power for the last 35 years— the Liberals and the Progressive Conservatives— I'll be blunt in saying we don't think that you keep us in mind. We think that you make your decisions with political expedience, and that you have since at least the mid-1960s.

How should I put this? I've been able to speak with enough people to get the idea that you have a very varied background, and that is great. Speaking with a number of people from other countries— I've had the opportunity to travel and I speak several languages, and Canada is the only country I know of in the western world where military service of any type is considered a hindrance or a detriment to political service— that is the perception; it may not be the reality, but perception is reality at times. And many of the decisions that are made concerning the Canadian Forces, since the 1960s at least, if not the Avro Arrow back in the 1950s, are being made without due strategic or military thought, without long-term thinking as opposed to short-term political expediency, as in “How many votes can I garner with this decision? How many jobs can I create with this product or equipment purchase?”

Somebody brought up the idea of the combat glasses. They're specifically designed to be worn by people who have non-perfect vision. I wear contact lenses. When I go to the field I have to wear glasses. If I were to go to the field now, I would simply pick up an American or a British military surplus catalogue and order my combat glasses, because we don't have them. They're not in the system, and haven't been for two years.

Chances are the reason they're not in the system, as people have wondered, is the thinking that, “Well, we can get them from another country. That's no big deal. We can get them if we go to war.” We can't train with them and get used to them. The biggest concern right now is let's find a Canadian producer.

• 2215

If we're deployed to the gulf right now, some of us are getting anthrax inoculations. I'm not included. I've trained a number of people to go on deployments, but I've not had the opportunity. But if we're sending people there and we're giving them anthrax inoculations borrowed from the U.S., and we're borrowing pieces of equipment, little pieces of equipment that are essential, where's the confidence, where's the trust?

In the military, I think— and I'm going to speak on the army side of the house and use an example. And for my infantry friends, I am not picking on you specifically or on any particular regiment, but some of the changes that have happened since the sixties have included the downsizing, the tribalization, and I'll use the infantry units as an example simply because they're the most easy to understand in this regard.

In the regular force we have only three infantry regiments, and we use the British regimental system, which is basically very tradition-bound. Each regiment has its own very strong connections and a very strong identity of battle honours, history, traditions and so on. It's a very strong and very family oriented atmosphere.

Britain still has several dozen of these different regiments, and when you have a large number they can work among each other; when you have a very few, I feel, they become very tribal. We have two English-speaking ones, one for western Canada, which is the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, and one for Ontario and the rest of English speaking Canada, the Royal Canadian Regiment. We have one French-speaking regular force infantry unit, the Royal 22nd Regiment, The Van Doos. They all have great battle honours and esteemed histories.

Up until the 1960s we had many more regular force units, so now the challenge is that if something screws up in the Van Doos, just for example, it's the only French-speaking unit. That's politics right there.

You would think that they would tend to gather together or that other people would use that for flak or for political points, whereas ideally, if you had three French-speaking regiments, maybe each with only a couple of battalions instead of three, if something screws up in one of the battalions, one of the regiments, it doesn't suddenly become political.

It's the same for the English-speaking side of the house. If we had four or five, you wouldn't have a bipolar thing that goes on sometimes within some portions of the officer corps. You would also have seven or eight different regiments working among each other, in the way our system is designed to work.

In my time in Ottawa I've seen— Again, perception is reality. When you have a large number of generals from one of the regiments, reality or not, the perception is that they're looking out for their own. If you have a large number of regiments, that can't happen. The perception is not there, the trust is more likely to be there, and there's less temptation to favour one or the other.

Finally, I think that military members and service members are sort of in two lights in terms of what's happened with Somalia. Then again, this is for senior leadership. I've worked with the Airborne Regiment. I know many people who have served there. I think that our political leadership failed us in this regard, specifically in terms of how they went about it. Very quickly the lower ranking people were found and punished or whatever, in many cases as a spectacle. Collective punishment was given to the regiment itself; it was disbanded with disgrace, which is unheard of, and in some cases there was an avoidance of individual responsibility higher up.

I think the most glaring example of failure of individual or leadership responsibility was the squashing of the Somalia commission before the election. Personally, I think, as do a number of other people, that we should have gone through it and done it; we should have aired the laundry and cleaned out what we needed to clean out. We should have done what the Americans did after the debacle in Vietnam and come back stronger over time. It's going to hurt. It's going to hurt the government and it's going to hurt us. I don't like it and I didn't like seeing this in front of the nation day after day, but I think it had to be done.

• 2220

In summation, I'm an optimist. I think the ills we have can be fixed. If you take good, strong, reasoned recommendations and drive them and work them into cabinet— Those of you who work in the opposition, keep the government responsible. Let your people know who we are. Let them know that we are like them, that we are there to serve them. We're doing our best. That's what I think we can ask of you with all reason.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Woods): Thank you very much, Captain.

Next is Corporal Kelly Watters.

Corporal Kelly Watters (Individual Presentation): Hi. I'd like to do some comparing of UN tours.

When people go overseas, they have a six-month tour. When you go to Alert, you also have a six-month tour. You have a 48-hour pass when you're overseas; in Alert, you do not. You're able to come home for a two-week leave period; when you go up north, you don't. When you're working overseas, you have day and night, normal, as here; when you go up north, you have six months of night, six months of day, or three and three.

Your pay is an isolation pay, and a separation pay if you're married. After taxes, the total comes to $385 a month. You still have the separation from your family, that tension. You are also unable to go out, unless you're interested in freezing. But when you're on tours, you get down time and away time. You can go out; you can buy your family things and bring it back. When you go to Alert, you don't go out. There is a little town they will fly you out to if you get a little bit of time off, where the prices of everything are doubled.

You get two phone calls home a week— one during the week, which is ten minutes, and one on the weekend, which is twenty minutes— if the lines are up, and they usually aren't.

Even if consideration is three months at a time— three months on, three months off, and you go back to finish your three months— you use the same amount of people. That's no more people than you're already using.

If the money you get for being there maybe wasn't taxed, it would be good, because it actually does cost you more for everything. Luckily, I'm not a drinker, so I don't have to worry about the booze doubling, but I do smoke, so there, pretty well, is a good lump sum I've just made.

Another consideration that I think would be good to be looked at is maternity leave. Three years ago I went on maternity leave. I went on unemployment insurance for three months, and the military topped up my pay to 85%. I'm lucky, because my husband is also military. At the same time, there were three other people I knew who were on maternity leave and who were single.

Your unemployment insurance doesn't start right away, so you have what's topped up. They were getting money from the pay office, this top-up. By the time one person started back to work at the end of three months, they were behind in their bills. They now owe the military money, and they still haven't received any unemployment insurance because the papers were messed up.

I took a further three months, which is parental and for which the military doesn't give you any money. You're strictly on unemployment.

• 2225

Then, when I had the pleasure of going back to work, they spent another eight months in getting my pay straight. What if I hadn't had another income that was able to cover things? I know two single parents, one of whom was borrowing money just to buy milk for their baby. Maybe there should be a better pay system or some type of a loan situation for this. As for our pay, they make mistakes, but it has been pretty good with the computers.

Here's a note on housing, which is special. They gave me new windows. That was good. They had them all done in a day. They had the trim around the inside. They went away at night. It rained every second day for two months, and they hadn't finished the outsides of my windows. My husband was away in the field, and I was working. I came home from work and my house was flooded upstairs and downstairs. The dogs were walking in water. My son took his boots off, and everything was wet.

Housing had lost control of it because it was contracted. I'd call every day to say that I wanted my windows fixed. I live in a duplex, and my neighbours had the same problem. It got to a point where I was not calling them at the housing office any more. I was calling the contractors. I asked them to please fix my windows. They said they couldn't do anything about it. They said I had to call the head office, which was in Toronto.

The good news was that in two months they fixed my windows when I sent them a cleaning bill for my rugs and everything else I had been cleaning for two months. They finished the outside, but they didn't caulk them. I spent the next year still cleaning up water. The good news is that they did come last week and finally caulked my windows.

If they're going to contract out, which the military is doing, is there some way of ensuring that the work is being done properly? They could have military people going around to check to ensure it's being done. When they finished my windows, they didn't re-insulate, so the pink fibreglass insulation was soaked and shrunk up. I later caulked all around the inside of my house because I could feel those papers flying through my house.

I realize the PMQs are old, tattered, and cold, but if they're having people contracted to do things, it should be possible to have people checking on the work that's being done.

My neighbour's window broke. He was here this afternoon, but couldn't come back tonight because he has a second job he had to go to. Two days after they put them in, they just put it down, and it shattered. His window was still taped up with gum tape waiting to be fixed.

When a window broke belonging to a sergeant across the road, it was fixed two days later. They told him to get promoted when he complained about his window. Even a first come, first serve basis would be good.

That's about it really.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. Next is Master Corporal Donald MacPherson.

Master Corporal Donald MacPherson (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentlemen, good evening.

I'd like to stand here tonight and talk about pay and benefits, but I believe that point has been made, so I won't go further there. I would just love to go on at length about the era of leadership in the military today and bring up personal examples of leaders who couldn't decide to hold their breath if their heads were under water, but I won't. I'll go on about one point and one point only, and get off quickly. I'm an instructor. That's what you do.

• 2230

Tonight I'd like to talk about recognition for good work in the military. There's no shortage of people here putting out good work. Unfortunately, with the lack of promotions now, there's no way left to tell them they're doing good work.

The best I can do now is pat my people on the head. If they do good work, it's, “Atta boy, good job”. If they do great work, it's “Atta boy, great job”. If they do superb work that everybody should aspire to, I can pat them on the head twice. It's not going to get them anywhere. Talk is cheap, and cheap rewards reap cheap results.

As a worker and a supervisor, promotion was what I looked forward to and what I had to offer the people who worked for me: “I'll get you a good PER, a good annual evaluation”. They worked hard and they got the recognition. Hopefully it meant you went somewhere in your career. But that's no longer.

Due to experts managing our career in the downsizing of the military, Paul Bernardo perhaps has more chance of day parole than I do of making sergeant.

Voices: Oh, oh.

MCpl Donald MacPherson: That was the last thing we could give— promotion. There's nothing else. It's a short list. Promotion was what we could offer people.

There were inequities in the promotion system. We all knew that. When I started the military, I was a base brat. I knew it. I took the wrong career path. I went to the army. I went to Europe. I went to communication command. I went to this school. I've spent years of my life outside this country. I've done 15 missions to wait in war zones. I've gone to places they said I couldn't go, to fix things they said I couldn't fix, with parts they said I couldn't get, using skills they said I didn't have, and damn it, most of the time those things got fixed. It's not much, but it's what I do, and I did it well.

That isn't the path to promotion. I've always known it. In the trades, as a technician, the path to promotion is to find yourself a radar site for seven or eight years, then get going to the school. You'll make sergeant, ward officer, possibly MWO. You'll do really well. If you stay in one place long enough they're going to promote you. They have to. You have to go up a little bit every year. That's how the game is played.

If you move from place to place and you're out doing things, gaining experience, being part of the world, that's not going to get you anywhere.

I've made that choice. I don't mind. I've reached a good spot now. With all the experience I've gained in the world, I've come to this school and essentially I run a photocopier. I run it very well.

Voices: Oh, oh.

MCpl Donald MacPherson: I have a staff of one. I produce books here. I write books. I print books. I edit books. I publish books. I've saved over $75,000 in the school's print budget, reducing it by 60% in under a year. That's good for a guy running the photocopier, but that's not going to get me the promotion either. Again, I don't mind, but I don't have anything to offer my people.

Now, there are all kinds of things, short of promotion, that we might go to but are not. No promotion, no raises. You can't get a raise unless you get promoted. No hope. No money. Well, you've been there. You've heard that one a lot.

Financial bonus for a good performance? I saved $75,000, and I get— “Thank you”. I don't get a bonus. I'm not a colonel or a general. Apparently they need incentive bonuses.

Of course, I saw CANFORGENs. They're still promoting colonels and generals. Some would say there's an incentive there. I don't know.

How about a gift? If you work really hard we'll give you a little gift from the unit, something we got out of our unit funds. We won't send a couple of extra officers on a golf tournament this year; we'll save it and then provide a little gift since you've worked really hard and you've saved us a lot of money or you've increased performance or some such thing. That would be great. But we won't do that.

They won't come up with trips to, I don't know, a computer exposition in Las Vegas or Toronto or something, even related to the job we do in computers. They won't come up with a little bonus— a stereo, say, or a ghetto blaster. They won't even come up with gift certificates for a meal downtown, or a Happy Meal across the road. Even McDonald's and Taco Bell have an employee of the month. We don't get that.

• 2235

Voices: Oh, oh!

MCpl Donald MacPherson: It's too much work, apparently, to administer this type of program. We have to establish committees, which have to come up with funding, determine what the prizes will be, and then allocate them in a proportionate manner to people who perform to a miserable degree in accordance with certain principles that nobody will elaborate on or possibly even contemplate.

Voices: Oh, oh!

MCpl Donald MacPherson: How about a little extra training in our fields? I used to be a technician. I haven't fixed a damned thing since 1993 because they found out I knew about computers. I knew about computers because I learned about them myself. Myself. I've never had a course in the military. They've never spent a cent on me for computers. They've spent nothing at all on my trade since 1992; that was the last time they sent me anywhere on their own bill.

Not a problem. Now I write course-ware for computer instruction. I make the books for the courses. I make sure the students have a book they can take home, a workbook they can work with, files that are ready, and an instructor's manual so the people know what to teach and in what order and everything gets done the right way, the same way, every time. I do that and I do it pretty well. That's a pretty good return on investment for the army: zero for all of this. They're doing pretty well for themselves.

Perhaps if I do well, they will send me on a computer course, something I don't know or would like a qualification in, because of course I can't even get recognition on a PER for home study. I have to get a paper from St. Lawrence College. Well, I can teach some of their courses, but I'm really not interested in taking them. In fact soon we will be teaching them here at the school. That ought to be fun.

A little training would be nice. Sometimes we get a course as a nice perk, but of course then the military hierarchy steps in and “does the right thing”. We had a corporal in our troop who put together our Internet for the school and did a lot of work on it. It's his primary job, despite what they tell him in his job specs, and he worked very hard at it, put a lot of time in, and made a very well-organized system out of a mess. When a course came to learn about the Intranet, they sent an officer who was awaiting his disability release. That's a good one. He'll just wait for his pension time now and leave. He's the guy they send on the course. That doesn't get anywhere.

There's nothing left. A pat on the head doesn't do it. You don't run a military on the religious principle of reward: a wonderful afterlife for a miserable today. That's all it is. It's a promise. You take your job experience and the training you get, somehow, in the military, and when you leave it, well, you'll do well in civilian life. You'll get a good job with great pay, and everything will work out rosy and glowing just fine.

Preachers the world over have that same sermon. They just change the text a little bit here and there. It doesn't work for a military. There has to be something, a measurable way to reward our people to show them we appreciate them, to show them we measure their worth in something more than little bits of paper or perhaps even the rank on the sleeve.

It's not a measure of leadership, the rank. It's a measure of how long you were at some place and whether or not you worked your way up through the game. The rank is not a leadership issue. You can be a good leader of low rank. It happens. It happens a lot. Truth be told, when there's trouble in the world, it's probably not somebody of high rank who's experiencing it. So the leadership has to take place at a lower level.

I'm a technician; I'm a computer geek. I don't do dangerous things. And yet I've been at the wrong end of a muzzle held by a Nicaraguan Contra, a Khmer Rouge, and a 14-year-old Christian Serb, drunk on slivovitz, who couldn't speak a word of English, French, German, or anything else I could stumble out, and who didn't care about me, but just saw my vehicle as a cheap ride home. Those are the things I have to put up with. And in the end, I have a good story to tell.

There's just no way for the military to say “Ya done good”, and that's what I'd like to see change.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. David Price: Ya done good.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Price: That's the best we can do for the moment.

MCpl Donald MacPherson: That's the best I've gotten so far, sir.

Mr. David Price: We will try to do better.

MCpl Donald MacPherson: That's the best I've gotten in a long time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Master Corporal.

Next is Master Corporal Scott Byers. Oh, sorry, Beverly Thibault.

• 2240

Ms. Beverly Thibault (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chair and honoured members. I'm one of those military wives who have come forward today.

Before I get into my comment, I'd like to respond to David Pratt's question about what advice I would give to a new recruit's wife. I would say there are two things I would do. One would be to do something pragmatic, and that would to be able to develop every skill you have, because you're going to have to be an entrepreneur. I have moved five times in five years and as a professional consultant I've had to re-establish my client base. By the time I have it re-established and think I'm going to get that next contract, I've moved.

That's my choice. I have a good husband. I love him dearly and I wouldn't leave him alone for that length of time because he'd probably be snapped up by somebody else. So we make a life choice, and I've decided to be a military member or associated with the member. But I am an ex-civilian and I'm probably going to say something tonight that may not make me very popular with the rest of my crowd here.

Having been a member of the public service and having been a member of the private sector, there is no community that I would rather be associated with than the military. As you can see, that's a very passionate statement for me to share with you. There is a lot that is frustrating. There is a lot that is difficult to deal with, no doubt. But there are a lot of great people who make up for that.

As my recommendation for you tonight, I would really encourage you to go back to your constituencies and try to educate them about the military. There are so many misconceptions about the lifestyle they lead and the lives their families lead. I think if they became somewhat more aware of the life that is similar to their own and yet different from theirs, there may be some of the political support that is going to be needed to get all the money that is going to have to be developed and acquired in order to meet the demands and the requests you've heard here tonight.

Without that political support there is not going to be any increase in the defence budget. Without an increase in the defence budget there will be no increase in quality of life. There will be no morale increase. If it is achieved in the short term, it won't be able to be sustained. If we don't sustain it, we're going to be back here in five to ten years having just as much fervid and impassioned debate. But it will be frustrating for those who are corporals here tonight and who are probably going to be warrant officers with any degree of luck. If not, they'll be left and will really miss out.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. Next is Lieutenant Alice Aiken.

Lieutenant Alice Aiken (Individual Presentation): Good evening.

Most of the points I had have been made and I'm not going to stand here and reiterate them. People have come up here and poured their hearts out to you with really heart-felt important issues that need to be heard. I would really like to believe that you guys could do something.

But in the midst of reading your reports from Edmonton and from Valcartier, I read in the paper that the colonels and above are thinking about giving themselves a 19% raise. These people obviously have no clue about the issue of morale or man-management. They can't. They can't, to do something like that. The men used to come first. When I joined the military 14 years ago, the men got fed first. Field pay went to the privates, then the corporals, then the master corporals and on up. If there was none left by the time the major got there, oh well. That doesn't happen any more. Everyone's suffering and the colonels are going to give themselves a 19% raise. It can't happen. That's it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. Next we have Corporal Alan McDonald.

Corporal Alan McDonald (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. It looks like I have a few tough acts to follow here.

There are three things I wanted to touch on tonight. One is the mess. It's been brought up a couple of times before. I just wanted to add a bit to it.

The room we're in right now is the junior ranks mess for the base, or the lounge part of the junior ranks mess. This place is a place where the junior ranks can get together. There is also an officers and a senior NCOs or sergeants and warrant officers mess.

• 2245

One of the traditions in the mess is that when you come into the mess, you remove your headdress. While we're in here this afternoon, I asked two military members, both of the rank of major or equivalent, to remove their headdress. One did so right away and without any hassle. I believe the other was an army major. This was his answer— He said that if we were in his mess and he had asked me to take off my beret and I gave him the same answer, then I would be up in front of my CO tomorrow, marched in by my sergeant major, and probably charged with insubordination.

The traditions are such that when you're in a mess, you take off your headdress. This member obviously didn't care that he was being asked to remove it even if he was on the way out while he was in the mess.

That leads me to my second point. It's on leadership. I have another story about messes. We were having a night for bosses in here one time. This is where the junior ranks invite their bosses for an evening function or a late-afternoon function. Coincidentally, the officers apparently had a mess meeting that very same afternoon. I was told this story by one of the officers who came over to the junior ranks area halfway through their mess meeting. She had tried to adjourn the officers meeting in the mess so they could come over and mingle with the people who worked for them, but was basically turned down flat.

It doesn't leave a good taste in one's mouth when the leadership sort of ignores their invitation to socialize with their subordinates for one afternoon or part of an afternoon. It doesn't leave a very good taste in the mouths of those in the junior ranks.

I'm trying to be brief here. The final point I would like to make is about equipment procurement. There have been several large contracts in the forces in the last 12 to 14 years with the frigates, CF-18s, and now the search and rescue helicopters.

The government seems to go out of its way to buy a piece of equipment and have the company they buy the equipment from spend the equivalent amount of money in Canada. Somehow, I don't think that happens to begin in with.

Second, I think it probably drives up the price of the contract past where it should be. Instead of the government just going out and buying the equipment— probably in the case of the fighter, I believe it was a $5.2-billion contract— if it had bought that without the offset contracts, it might have saved anything from $500 million to $1.5 billion, in my estimation. I have no numbers to back this up, but I just think the price was driven up artificially by these offset contracts.

In the case of the frigate program, the government went out and decided that it wanted to build frigates in Canada after basically a 20-year hiatus. So they had to go out, build up the design team, the manufacturing facilities, and the whole nine yards with taxpayers' money.

Then, at the end of it, when they got their twelfth frigate, there was no follow-on contract, so the government basically wasted that taxpayers' money to build up those infrastructures and that design team. The design team is probably packing its bags and going elsewhere now. The government, when it decides to buy ships again, will not have that design team there, so it will have to build it up all over again.

I'm sorry, sir, that's the extent of my complaints for tonight.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. We appreciate you taking the time.

• 2250

Next is Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Pentney.

Lieutenant-Colonel Dave Pentney (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I have two points.

I think a lot of things have been covered tonight, but one of the issues that stands out clearly in my mind is the need to separate the armed forces from the public service in terms of compensation. I say that at this point because of the perception that's created.

The perks that are supposedly generated for colonels and generals that keep coming up— they appear in the paper— that is because they're tied to the public service. It has nothing to do with their ability. Are they in a position to say no? It's out of their hands. But that doesn't do us anything here.

Things like PMQ rents is another example. That's out of the department's hands. It's set by somebody else. But the perception is that nobody's looking out for us, nobody's going to the wall for us. That was reinforced about four years ago when General Reay, the commander of the army, said this has to stop, wrote an open letter and sent it off to Ottawa. It was published in all the routine orders across the army: we've got to stop; no pay increases; no PMQ rent increases; no single quarters increases.

So what happened next year? It came out on every base and people found a PMQ rent increase in their mailbox when they went home, and the chain of command didn't know about it. People wonder why the chain of command isn't looking after them, and it is because the system is undermining their ability to do so.

If you're looking for recommendations or things to take away and think about, I'll offer the idea of a cost-of-living allowance. We do this routinely when we're overseas, or we have in the past. For example, for somebody who is working at NATO headquarters in Brussels, foreign service regulations, which are shared between the military and the foreign service, set a post index in Brussels. If you go 200 kilometres down the road to Mons— both are in Belgium— there are two different post indexes. That means a factor is applied to their pay based on the cost of living in either of those two locations.

Canada is a hell of a lot bigger than Brussels. From west coast to east coast— compare the cost of living in Toronto and Moose Jaw. Somebody living in Toronto rather than Kingston— their rent is higher, their insurance, car and home, is double. There are all sorts of other activities. Just registering your car is $20 more.

Somehow we've missed the boat on that, notwithstanding that we don't have things like equal service charges for single quarters, married quarters, base to base. I would ask you to consider the cost-of-living allowance aspect in your report, which would be based on the StatsCan consumer price index done on a monthly basis, I think. Take a base, whatever that may be, and apply that factor across to wherever people are. That will mitigate a lot of the inequities that people see as they travel around the country.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Colonel, for those ideas.

Next is Sergeant Jeff Wilson.

Sergeant Jeff Wilson (Individual Presentation): Let me start by applauding the candour of Corporal Taylor, who came up here earlier. As the accommodation supervisor, I can assure you that his statements are quite valid with respect to single quarters.

As the accommodations supervisor, I can relay firsthand that we have had a tremendous maintenance shortfall with respect to our single quarters. Our living-in members are presently expected to put up with such deficiencies as leaking showers, leaking roofs, leaking windows, leaking doors and leaking skylights. I think you get the overall picture.

We've also experienced severe staff shortages with the loss of six of our military barrack wardens this past summer. This translates into added pressure on our civilian cleaning staff to assist with duties historically carried out by these barrack wardens, the subsequent domino effect being a shortfall in general cleaning and maintenance.

Although I readily admit that our cleaning staff have more than risen to the occasion, one can quickly deduce that some things are going to get missed, and certainly have. As I have already indicated, the aforementioned translates into a lack of funding and support for our single quarters.

• 2255

My recommendations are therefore two-tiered: first and foremost, I would recommend that additional funding be provided to properly support CFB Kingston; and second, as quarters are directly related to quality of life, morale and well-being, I would like to see a system implemented whereby local commanders are administratively compelled to spend x amount of dollars in support of single quarters, rather than be given the option to spend it elsewhere.

I feel this is paramount in view of our recent devolving of funds program, as many construction engineering deficiencies or projects now either remain unaddressed for an unreasonable amount of time or must accompany a financial coding or payment. In other words, if maintenance deficiencies are my priority as the accommodations supervisor, and not construction engineering, then I must pay for these deficiencies from my own limited budget.

In closing, I would like to thank you for listening and welcome any assistance you may have to offer, either to myself or to anyone else who has had the courage and conviction to address you today. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, sergeant.

Next is Lieutenant-Colonel Steve Hill.

Lieutenant-Colonel Steven Hill (Individual Presentation): Good evening.

I am one of these gentlemen who just came from Brussels. I've just been released from the Canadian Forces, having decided to retire a year earlier than scheduled. To the gentleman who was speaking about the situation in Brussels, cost-of-living allowance and all the rest of it, I'm very familiar with that.

I'd like to make a preliminary remark and then get into specifics about what could be done to improve certain aspects.

First of all, I would like to be speaking here from the perspective of a federation of Canadian military professionals, a new union-like organization that should be created for the Canadian Forces, but it doesn't actually exist today. Such an organization exists among the RCMP and also among the German forces. It is an organization completely outside the chain of command that will forcefully pass on a message to the senior ranks about how disappointed the people being led are with those who are leading them.

I think such an organization is desperately needed for the Canadian Armed Forces. The people appointed are the types of individuals— you saw someone here speaking about patting his subordinates on the head— who can speak candidly and forcefully to people in senior-ranking positions when they fail to fall on their swords on behalf of their people. That needs to be done from time to time. We need to know that we have a general who is prepared to stand up and not act in a gutless manner when we have a serious problem affecting us at the bottom end of the Canadian Forces.

Back to the point. The point is that if the German forces see it as a functioning thing, and I had a subordinate in Brussels who was a member of that team and was very effective in conveying messages to their parliamentarians and to their military leadership— I think the tinker fit that has happened among our military, allowing all sorts of things to happen, like alternate service delivery and so on— those people need to know that those things are not working on behalf of their people.

It works effectively for the Germans and I believe it's working effectively for the RCMP. They're not affected by their leadership in terms of representing the people they've been placed there to represent. And I think it could work for the Canadian Armed Forces as well.

I'm now at the end of my 32-year service career, with militia and cadet time before that, and I don't think any of us joined the military without a clear perspective on what we were doing in terms of choosing sacrifice on behalf of our nation— sacrifice even to the point of losing our lives.

Second, I don't think we joined the military without knowing that we were signing away a large number of the rights and privileges of common Canadian citizens. We knew that we wrote it off when we joined the military, and I believe the spouses knew that as well. We don't get to choose to come or to go, or to be out there in the ice storm and so on. We chose to do that in order to represent our country well. Having been at the Commonwealth graves over in Europe and seen the gratitude expressed toward Canadians by the Belgians, Dutch, and the French, I can tell you that we're held in very high esteem.

So we've earned a feedback for that choice that we've made to sacrifice, on behalf of our country, and to write off the rights and privileges that belong to the common Canadian citizen. But in return, because loyalty is a two-way street, loyalty has to be earned by the people at the highest level of our Canadian Forces. When they are perceived to be currying favour for themselves, something has to change, and I think the time for change is right now.

• 2300

I read a bunch of Farley Mowat's books about the shenanigans that went on in World War II when they were not adequately backed up by their politicians— left without artillery and ammunition to go and attack impossible targets with reduced-strength units and so on. So I've seen what happened back then. I would applaud you, because you are here wanting to hear from us as military people and make changes.

I think you could make some of those changes by creating a mechanism outside the chain of command so that the right message gets to the right level at the right time. You can say “General, you are disappointing us when you let them disband a unit like the Canadian Airborne Regiment and punish the whole lot of people for the nonsense of a couple of them”. They can pass that message on and stop some of the stupidity that goes on.

On a specific point, alternate service delivery is screwing the troops. Somebody needs to tell the senior military people who are making those decisions that we are blaming politicians, we are blaming Treasury Board. I don't think it belongs with them. Maybe the military leadership can tell me that I'm wrong. I think the military leadership is making those decisions to save a nickel and they are screwing their own troops. What happens to that cook when he needs time on a garrison to recuperate the situation of his adolescent son who has gone astray? Where is that garrison cooking position to which he can be assigned for three years to recoup his family situation? It is gone. It has been given away to alternate service delivery.

We need to go back and visit that. If we are down to 60,000, maybe we need to be boosted back up to 70,000. If it costs $1.10 to pay a military wage when you can buy a civilian for $1, you need to pay the $1.10 because you need to earn our loyalty to you. If it is $1.10 for a military guy so that he can have a garrison position, or the ship-to-shore ratio between the sailors— Right now you are posted to a field unit and you are staying there for your career— for 32 years if you hang in there like I have. You are staying there because there is no garrison location. We gave it away to alternate service delivery. Wake up, generals; you are screwing your own troops.

If it is the politicians who are at fault, then those generals need to start lining and falling on their swords on behalf of their people, because the message needs to get across. You want a Canadian Forces that will be your final arbiter of law and order when police authorities and firemen and everything else breaks down in your country. You can tell a soldier to get out there, and if it costs them their life, you so order. If you want that kind of thing from us as soldiers you better earn it, so pay $1.10 for that position instead of $1 for a cheap alternate delivery source for the thing.

Excuse me. I got a little bit carried away.

On leadership, you want to put leaders in here who know what it is like to be down at the bottom end. In the Somalia incident fallout they were asking how we were going to clean up our leadership in the Canadian Forces. They said they were going to insist they all have a university education. Since when did a university education teach a guy good ethics and good behaviour? If you want leaders who know what is happening at the bottom end, insist that they spend two years as a soldier at the bottom. And not just as any old soldier, but as a combat arms soldier or a sailor going to sea— but not as an airman; I think there is too much garrison for the common airman around here. You have to get him out there and drag him through the mud and let him know what it is like to be out there as a soldier. After two years, if he has acquitted himself as an honourable soldier, then let him go milk haul or one of these other avenues.

If they are not prepared to make that sacrifice of two years soldiering, do we really want them? They are the kinds of guys who want instant postings to Ottawa to become bureaucrats for the rest of their military careers, wearing all manner of stripes all over their bodies. Well, screw him. He doesn't need a posting to Ottawa. Get him out there, drag him through the mud and make sure he's earned the privilege of leadership in the Canadian Forces. That is an idea on commissioning. That other nonsense is crazy.

Another way in which we are screwing the troops right now is with this business of leave. Right now we are insisting that if you haven't used up your leave, you are screwed. When we are talking about looking after our families, there should be a percentage of leave every year. If I get five weeks leave, then three weeks of that, if I am a family man, should be leave that can definitely be taken with the family. If it can't, don't hassle my general, me, or anybody else with having to put in a detailed submission as to why that soldier couldn't take his leave. If it wasn't three weeks with his family, where it belongs, then pay him for it. Let him take his family to Disneyland for three days if he can't take that with his family.

• 2305

Right now we're saying you have five weeks leave, and if don't use it up by the end of the year, you're screwed. We're not even offering to buy it out, in many cases. If you want to buy it out, you have to write a justification that's up the ying-yang, and who knows what general may accept it or not.

If you really believe in families, if you really believe in us military, stop that nonsense of doing away with our leave. Let us accumulate a certain amount of it or pay us out for it at the end of the year so we that can we at least spend it on our families over Christmas and New Years, whenever we stand down, and we can go off to California and Disneyland and so on.

This business of use it or lose it is nonsense. Whatever military mind hatched that approach to our annual leave entitlements deserves to go back and see a head shrink or somebody like that.

That's probably enough, but I will mention one last one. If you want a quick fix on something, especially something that has to do with the “Ontario-centricity” of the Canadian Forces, fix the CFPO. When I'm over in Bosnia and I want to send a parcel home to my family in British Columbia, from where I got assigned, it costs me twice as much as a guy who wants to send it home to his family in Trenton.

I don't know why the Canadian government, or even this organization called the postal system, allows that kind of thing, but for me, I should be paying the same price, no matter where my family is, to send a parcel home, or even for them to send it to me. If my family is out in Victoria and wants to send me a parcel in Bosnia, it's going to cost them three times as much as it costs a guy sitting here in Kingston, because we have to pay to mail it to Belleville first before it goes to me.

So fix that and the rest of us in Canada will know, hey, Canada doesn't revolve around Ontario. It actually recognizes there are other provinces than Ontario. Surprise, surprise.

Voices: Hear, hear.

LCol Steven Hill: I made the point about sacrifice and writing off our rights and everything else. I think this problem with pay right now— And I've watched it. I am now a lieutenant-colonel, getting big bucks. I'm about to retire from those big bucks and so on, but to some extent it's been an embarrassment for the latter half of my career. In getting percentage increases you took from the lowest rank level and you moved the disparity between the lowest and the highest rank level continuously further and further apart. That should never have been allowed to happen in the military.

I know comparability is a big thing, to push comparability and all the rest of it, but still, it should never have been allowed to happen. We need to haul back. If you need to freeze our pay— and my officer colleagues might not like this— to keep bringing the bottom end up, do it. Do it for the next ten years, if it takes that long, to fix that great disparity between lowest and highest rank level.

Never mind whether this general has to be compared to some EX-12 or whatever he is up in Ottawa. If he wants to be a general leading the military, let him stay there at the compressed rank level and let him enjoy leadership. I belong to these guys as much as they belong to me.

If I want to have that relationship, which I've enjoyed over my military career— okay, at the latter end of it— I'm not going to get the really big bucks, I'm going to get somewhere in between. That's what needs fixing; draw that thing back together.

We're a military. We're not a bunch of civilians up there. I know we have civilians in our organization here, but what I'm saying is, we're not civilians working in Ottawa. We're military. We're distinctly different, if I can use that phrase, and we can live with it. We can live with all of that in order to enjoy the relationship we need to enjoy between all rank levels of the Canadian Forces.

That's all I have to say, sir.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Colonel, for your refreshing and also candid comments. They were excellent.

Sergeant Bob O'Hara.

Sergeant Bob O'Hara (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

Committee members and military members, I would like to mention a couple of items about health and training.

About a year and a half ago I went to see the doctor. This is when I was stationed in Petawawa. Having had 26 years in the forces then, and good knees, I was feeling that my knees were going down. I believe a lot of people down here have bad knees already from the military, especially with the ground-pounding.

I asked him to check out my knees. He asked me if I had a real problem with my knees. I said no, I do not have a problem with my knees; however, I have 26 years in now, and maybe in a couple of years I will have to be removed from the service— hopefully very healthy. My knees are slowly giving out. He said okay, let's check them out. He checked them out. He said those knees are good. I said that's the point, they're good. However, I would like to leave the forces with a healthy set of knees, the knees that my parents gave me.

• 2310

Anyway, he said there wasn't much he could do. So I asked him if I could be excused from running in my combat boots on the hard cement roads in Petawawa. He said no, I cannot excuse you. I asked why not. He said this is a military commitment; you can only be excused if you have bad knees. So what happens with this preventive medicine? I'm a radio technician. You have vehicle technicians. You have all kinds of people who do preventive maintenance on their type of equipment. However, the medical doctor was not committed. He did not want to give that to me. When I asked why he couldn't do this, he said his hands were tied.

So this is what we have in the military. They're not looking after us. They first want you to have bad knees, bad backs, and bad shoulders. This is what's happening in the military. There is no preventive medicine.

The following item I would like to mention in follow-up is the running in combat boots. You have people 25 years old. They joined up when they were 19 or 20 years old, and after 25 years of age, or even 30 years of age, they are crippled. They have bad knees. The forces are not looking after these people. They force them to run. I have heard people say to me that certain commanding officers have said they will not run with their rucksacks on these roads with combat boots on, and some adjutants, leaders in the military infantry units, etc., still insist that the troops will do this. This is not looking after your troops.

The second item is 24-hour duty. I was stationed in Germany and I went on a pilgrimage to Lourdes in France. This was an international military pilgrimage and I had the opportunity to meet a couple of military members of different nations. I talked to one serviceman, a conscript from Spain, and he said to me, “My government posts me close to where my home is. This way they do not have to feed me as much.” I really had to laugh at that. I said “We Canadian soldiers get fed by our government through our tax dollars. Never in our world would this happen.” Let me tell you, 20 years after that— 1977 and now we are in 1997— I was on duty in Petawawa, and the policy down there in this regiment was that the people who were living in Petawawa, on 24-hour duty, would not be fed in the mess.

In the 19th century, Napoleon said that an army will not march on an empty stomach. And this is what the Canadian military is doing. People are on duty 24 hours and not being fed. They have to go home if they live in Petawawa. If they live on one side of the road just out of Petawawa they will get fed, but if they live on this side and they live in Petawawa, they will not get fed; they have to go home. This is not the way to treat a soldier.

Pay is another thing. After 28 years in the service, as a sergeant I make approximately $23 an hour. I sent my son to college in Pembroke. After one year of college he makes $23 an hour today. He works with a big company, is unionized and everything else. He gets overtime pay and he brings home $700 after taxes a week— no responsibility on his part. I have a lot of responsibility.

Human rights— when I joined up there was no such thing as human rights. You had the redress of grievance, and this is the way the military ran. Nowadays you have gone from one extreme to the other extreme. You're afraid to tell a recruit whatever you want to tell him. Apparently— don't quote me, but you could quote me anyway— when a sergeant or a master corporal gives a man a hassle or gives some disciplinary action, there comes the yellow card, there comes the red card: “Hold off, Sergeant; hold off, Master Corporal. You cannot tell me these things. You're making me very repressed. It doesn't feel good.” I don't think this is the army we want.

• 2315

Let me turn to the issue of dress, and this again has to do with leadership. Last October the dress was not in yet. However, the dress at that time was summer dress. Two weeks ahead of that time people came in from other bases who were already dressed in winter dress. They ignored the summer dress, which was prescribed by the dress regulations.

What is this for leadership? Everybody else was asking, what's happening, these people are wearing winter dress. Do we still have to do summer dress? Imagine if we did the same thing.

Even though these are all complaintsI have, I'm happy to have served in the Canadian Forces, and will remain there for another four and a half years. I know my father served in the Second World War— which was worse than what we have all gone through— and that the Canadian Forces will hopefully never have to shoot a bullet in anger.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Sergeant.

Sergeant François Demers is next.

[Translation]

Sergeant François Demers (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much, members of the committee. I want to raise some issues.

[English]

I'll start with the memo I first received when the committee was coming to Kingston. It said that only so many people would be allowed to be on it, your TC and the one officer below. TC stands for troop commander, which is captain and below. I see that tonight there's more than that. I'm surprised that they came out here, and they had some pretty decent questions. It has been an eye-opener to me as well, so I'm glad they came out.

With reference to that, as well, and from a leadership point of view, some colleagues earlier today said that some members, some heavy-duty brass, came to the mess here this evening— it belongs to the junior ranks— and they were wearing hats. I was quite surprised to see that at that rank level, that we see this nowadays. I was kind of shocked.

My second point refers to reservists. There are reservists right now at my rank level, and prior to December their wages were about $27,000 a year. Now, with the increase they're roughly up to $35,000 to $33,000. I was just told that even though they get their SLC qualification, if they have to revert to the regular force they would have the rank of corporal. What kind of respect do we have for somebody who one day is is a sergeant reservist and the next day is a corporal? How can we cope with that?

I was training for Yugoslavia back in 1995, and the tour was cancelled. We had some master corporal reservists who came to us. I'm not trying to shoot down the reservists, but what was hard was the fact that those master corporals were coming to us without a lack of training in some areas. And we had some corporals who were fairly qualified for that employment.

Back then they had what was called a WSE, a while-so-employed. They did not do it, and our branch requested that they do it. It was never done, and we're wondering why they were never given that chance. Instead, they brought some reservists who weren't as qualified, and there was a lot of friction that was felt with those people being there with us and getting ready to go to Yugoslavia.

As I said earlier, apparently senior ranks— I'm talking about the senior officers. We see to haircuts, military dress, and so on. Since I work as a sergeant at 1CDHSR, I've seen some divisional officers— A captain, for instance, came to us with a square-back haircut, and it was pretty thick. It was pointed out to me, how can we accept that? As a sergeant, how can I make those changes? It's fairly hard for me, not even in the chain of command with this officer, to say something, even though he came through my shop and asked for service.

• 2320

It is fairly hard for me to have to cope with that, especially when a few days before I had to discipline one of my members who had the same style of haircut. I just told him quickly that it was not acceptable according to our standards, and that he had to go and get it fixed up.

But I did not say anything to the captain. I felt it was for somebody higher up than me to take care of that. I'd like that to be addressed by the army chief warrant officer perhaps. We don't hear from him very often on these kinds of issues, on dress.

How come the military is sometimes letting the officers slide with that kind of stuff? We sergeants have to always cope with this discipline. Sometimes we feel that we are kind of let down in what's happening with that.

With respect to promotions, a lot of people are talking about promotions. In January I went through an O-group. When I was through the O-group I was given about five or six promotions from the rank of lieutenant-colonel, colonel, brigadier-general, and so on. My co-worker was not in the same branch. I am with the signals branch, CNE; he is with another branch. His promotion was cancelled, because there was no money.

I felt somewhat betrayed to see someone at my senior NCO level— because he was a senior NCO— about to reach one platform higher, and turned down because of a lack of money. Yet senior officers were getting some promotions. It was fairly hard to take.

There was also another promotion turned down from master to sergeant, with, again, a denial of posting. I have a hard time with that.

My next topic is PMQs; everybody talks about them. I'm a sergeant. When I went to examine my PMQ, I was not overly pleased with it. So I went to see the housing people, and I said I'd like to see another one, if possible. I was told that there was none available. So as a sergeant I had to show leadership. I said okay, I'll take it, and I'll see if I can get it fixed in however long it is going take while I'm in Kingston.

As I moved in, the next-door neighbour came to me and said “You accepted that PMQ?” This guy is a corporal. He said “I turned it down”. He said he wouldn't live in that PMQ.

Like in the old days, I soldier on.

Also, there was the time they moved in my furniture. When you go upstairs, there are four bedrooms. I bought a bedroom set. It has a queen-size bed. The mattress did not fit upstairs. So the movers came in and said it doesn't fit. It was very hard to fit. He was at the point of breaking the wall, and asked me, “Are we going to make it happen? Are we going to push through, or are we just going to have to ask for permission?” I took the decision that we were going to to make it through, and I would patch it myself. We went on.

When that was done, I went to see the housing people. I said “I'd like to have the wall remodelled just like the other PMQs, where you can remove the ramp so that anybody else in the future, including me when I leave, can actually take furniture out without any problem.” It was denied. I had to phone Ottawa myself. I phoned the engineer of the PMQs, and I said, “When it's 1996, 1997, going on 2000, how can we accept that?” He said this is not a goal. I said something has to be done. I pushed the issue, and two weeks or a month later, you had it done.

Let me say something about paint. My wife took an interior decoration course. She looked at the paint, and was amazed at the paint they used. You cannot wash the walls. It's just unbelievable. It's flat paint.

Of course everybody knows that there are coats and coats of paint, but the paint was painted over the old oil-based paint. When you put that kind of paint on it, you rub a little, and it just peels.

We complained, of course, and lucky us— I don't know if it's because I'm sergeant, or what— someone came, and fixed it up rather quickly. I was pleased with that. But what kind of standard is that for people in the PMQs?

I was given a document to take care of on the technical side of the house; it's called pre-ATI. Some senior officers were involved in all kinds of preparation for it. Then there was a debriefing, and a meeting to see what was happening with it. I was not at the debriefing. The CO had the debriefing with some of the members. Because I was not with that squadron, I did not go, but some of the members went. The question was raised, why are we doing those technical inspections? The senior officer himself said he didn't believe in them, even though we had to go through it.

• 2325

I thought it was a heartbreaker for a sergeant to push the issue of a longstanding inspection that's gone through for readiness and so on when you hear some kinds of comments like that. If they don't care about this kind of inspection, you wonder why you're doing that kind of job.

We were talking earlier about the PT system. This base here was quite surprised. The ASD took over and everything changed. We had some former staff doing a job for what we used to do as an EPTA. Of course, it's awful. We're not looking at the old EPTA because they were not trained properly, yet we still have people giving warm-ups and so on to their centres. It's not right, but we're still going through it.

Why are we allowing that old system, the EPTA? Good or not good? What kind of reference are we using? In 1997, we're saying that it was never really approved, so what's going on with that?

I have all kinds of questions as I'm following through. I said I was going to stand up here tonight and ask them on behalf of my peers.

Why can't we accumulate five days of leave, which was said earlier by a senior member? Why can't we accumulate five days every year so we can have a better cushion when you leave the army? It makes your life better.

Promotion posting, I touched a bit on that. There are members, co-workers, who are just totally in despair. As I said earlier, some officer hears he's getting promoted, but he then has to tell his wife that he won't get promoted. It was a mistake. He won't get posted. It was a mistake. There's no money, so he's staying put.

Consider beer in the field. A lot of people are saying we're grown-ups and there have been some mistakes in the past and there will be mistakes in the future. Why can't we be allowed two beers a man, like it used to be? Every now and then, it's an issue. When you go in the field, they don't want to see it. I myself believe, as a senior NCO, that the controls are there. We have proved that we can do it, so I don't know why we're so stingy about it.

Look at the RCMP and the posting allowance. It's a fact that RCMP's posting allowance, when they get it, is not taxable. It will not affect how much they earn a year. Why is this in the military? This has been debated in the past. It's gone down, it's quiet. I'm still wondering why it is taxable for us and attached on top of the money we make yearly. It's still hurting us. Why?

CD decorations are an issue. One of my members felt that he did not want to receive a CD. He had to go through an outside chain of command to get that done. He was told by a member of Parliament that he could deny it, but of course it would not look good on his military career.

This was the first time it ever happened to me. I was quite reserved about this kind of stuff, but I'll just mention to you. There are some members out there who feel disgraced when they get a CD for the rank of corporal, as they carry on to be released from DND with the rank of corporal without any advancement. Sometimes they feel ashamed that this is all they have on their shoulders to prove their pride.

That's about all I've got for now. I won't touch base on the ASD. It was said earlier that ASD is something for the future apparently to save money. I myself have 17 years, mostly in the army. Broken bones are coming in. I've asked for somewhat of a posting so I can rest my body so it can heal a little bit.

• 2330

I believe that ASD has taken that away from me, and that we'll do it more and more. ASD is something that is stability, yes, for the people who go and fix things. They're there for a good reference. On the other hand, it's taking postings away from me whereby if I am hurt I can take this kind of posting and heal and carry on for whatever other posting I have to go to in the field again.

Thanks for the cooperation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Sergeant.

Next is Warrant Officer Dan Haslip.

Warrant Officer Dan Haslip (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I'll try to keep my comments short.

Just to reiterate, a lot of things are in point form here.

You've heard all about pay. You've heard it today and this evening. There's one thing I do have a heartache with: we're told that we are tied to the civil service for our pay and benefits, but when was the last time somebody from External Affairs or Revenue Canada or any of the other federal services had to do a 13-kilometre march in old equipment, boots that ruin your knees, rucksacks that hurt your back, with weapons and web gear as well, or had to leave their families for up to six months at a time to go on the spur of the moment to places like Montreal, Bosnia, etc.? That'll be enough for that.

I have only one thing more on pay. I'm a troop warrant officer and I have about 22 people working for me. The last thing I did before I went on Christmas leave was to hand out food vouchers to my troops. This is embarrassing to me. It's embarrassing to them, that they have to get something like a food voucher for a Christmas dinner. That should be enough on pay.

On housing, it's all been said before.

Postings: every two to three years we move around. That's a fact of life. Our families suffer for it. My wife just gets a job, and two years later we're moving. She loses that job and has to find a new one.

Security: there is no security in the military any more.

Retirement: the retirement plan has not changed since I've been in for almost three decades. People are having to make do with the same basic levels as they did 30 years ago.

Leadership by example— Everybody tonight has talked a little bit about leadership. There are a lot of things that fall under the umbrella of leadership. They're not happening from my level on up. As for the senior management— and I'll use the word “management”— the military does not run on management. It runs on the leadership. The senior leadership in the military is failing. They have not been taken to task for things like Somalia and other things.

In regard to the military equipment side of the house, the procurement system, I know there are three systems the military is looking at buying or is in the process of getting right now. There are multi-million-dollar pieces of equipment coming into the system. They don't work.

There are little things like the combat boots. Just about everybody with more than 20 years has problems with their knees, their backs, their necks, etc. They're running around on stuff that physiotherapists will tell you is hurting them. We're still issuing it.

To illustrate the fact a little bit more, if you take a size-nine boot, in the military you can't get one. You get a nine to nine and a half. For anybody who does long marches or is expected to wear their boots that long, again it's a little point, but if you're out doing a 13-kilometre march with boots that don't fit, your feet look like hamburger at the end of it. It's a small point, but it goes right through.

The vehicles: the light service vehicle that just came into the system doesn't work.

Medical treatment is probably right up there. The medical facilities in the forces have been cut back severely in the last seven to ten years. With that, in terms of the quality of care that's being able to be offered, the medical facilities can't offer the same care.

As well, people are afraid to go in. I have several people who are afraid to go in and get medical treatment because they think their military career will come to an end. It has happened in several cases in the last little while that people have gone in, their knees are shot, and they're booted out.

• 2335

I know it's going late. I would like to thank you for your efforts on our behalf. Again, thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Warrant Officer.

Chuck Rowsell.

Mr. Chuck Rowsell (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, committee, I'm here as a former service member and as a club supervisor of the junior ranks club. I have questions as to why and how the armed forces can take this away from me.

I currently run a club that has 1,000-plus members. We operate an NPF catering kitchen out of here, this facility. Our armed forces members have a choice of paying rations or not paying rations. By not paying rations, they have the choice of eating elsewhere. We run a kitchen here, an NPF kitchen, three days a week. I have members who continuously come here and eat. My kitchen is open Wednesday to Friday. On Monday and Tuesday I have no kitchen; I will do $15 to $17 a day during a noon hour. When I have a kitchen, I'll do $200, $300, $400, or $500-plus as the days progress.

How can my base put out a letter to me telling me I can no longer provide this service to my members? I can no longer have a caterer or any person prepare food or cook food within this facility. My public support has been cut. There is a message down from the CDS stating that messes will have public support, but my base commander can tell me my public support will be cut.

I have 70-plus functions booked for this year alone, weddings or whatever they may be. I have 12 or more functions booked for 1999. These functions keep this club running, not only the members' dues. These functions keep the club running. I've been informed that I must increase my costs to these people with a stipend, a figure they pulled out of the air that I must charge these people. I've given these people quotes, estimates. These people have based their functions on this estimate. Now I'm informed that I must inform these people their price will rise. Why?

I want to know why I cannot run a feeding facility out of this club when my equipment is 90%-plus NPF. Why does the base commander decree that there will be no cooking in these facilities? Why can I not continue the livelihood of this club?

That's all. Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you.

That brings to a close our evening of hearings. It's certainly been an interesting evening, and we want to thank the people who are still here for staying with us.

If my calculation is right, we had the opportunity to hear over 45 people tonight, so it's certainly been worth while. It is the rule of the chair and the committee that we do hear everybody and give everyone an opportunity to appear before us.

We want to thank you once again for being here and for the hospitality you have shown the committee. We've had certainly an interesting time. We've had a chance to tour spots on the base and have a look at some of the barracks, so it's been a very informative day. We thank you once again.

We are adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. in Ottawa. Thank you.