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 23, 1998

• 1902

[English]

Colonel Paul Hussey (Base Commander, 22 Wing, Canadian Forces Base North Bay): Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Don't be shy. Please come forward. Mr. Wood does not bite. Well, you know better.

For those of you who do not know who I am, I'm Colonel Paul Hussey, base commander, wing commander, and I'd like to welcome you to your town hall. The members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs have graced us with their presence. They are here for you this evening. They are here for as long as it takes to hear each and every one of you say your piece.

I am here right now to encourage you to do just that. We have their time; we have their attention. They are here to try to gather all of the facts and all of the opinions and to go back and sometime later on this year present to our government a way to address all of the concerns of the members of the Department of National Defence and of the Canadian Forces and of the veterans. So your job tonight is to inform them by presenting your opinions, all of which count to them.

We are grateful that these ladies and gentlemen are here this evening to do the listening and to enter into a dialogue with you. As I say, we'll take as long as is needed this evening to address and to dialogue all of your concerns. I really do encourage you to be frank and open with these people. They're here for us.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)): Thank you very much, Colonel. As the colonel said, we are here to hear everyone's views.

To give you a little recap, this is something that was started about a year and a half ago and was interrupted by the election. But the new Minister of Defence carried on with the mandate of the committee, which was to go across the country and hear as many views as possible from the enlisted personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces on what was bothering them so that we could get together as a committee and present a report that would hopefully be able to enhance the quality of life in the armed forces, and we've done that. We've been across the country. We were in Kingston last week at this time and heard close to 50 people who made presentations.

• 1905

As the colonel was saying, please don't be intimidated by all this. Just come up to the mike and say what's on your mind. To do this better, we do have a list of designated speakers, but if you want to speak, we would encourage you to register with Michel, just so we can make sure we have it in proper order.

We are set up to receive presentations in both of Canada's official languages. If you want to get a translation device, that is over there as well. So translation is available to you.

In regard to the process, as we said, everything will be taken down. We have researchers who will be doing that. Everything is being recorded and sent back to Ottawa.

We want to hear everybody who wants to be heard, and if it means we stay here until midnight, that's how long we'll stay here. So don't let any time restraints bother you.

Before we get going, I would like to introduce my colleagues who are with me tonight, from various political parties: from the Bloc Québécois, Madame Pierrette Venne; Leon Benoit from the Reform Party; David Pratt from the Liberals; George Proud, who is also the parliamentary secretary to the Department of Veterans Affairs; and Judi Longfield.

As we said, we've been travelling throughout the country—all of us—and we want to hear what's on your mind. So please let us know what you're thinking.

We have a list of about seven designated speakers. After that, as we said, just register with Michel and we'll go to that other list.

To start things off this evening, I would like to call on the Honorary Colonel Ted Hargreaves. Ted.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves (Honorary Colonel, 22 Wing, Canadian Forces Base North Bay): Mr. Chair, thank you for being here this evening.

I would like to introduce myself, for the members on the panel who don't know me. I am an honorary colonel for 22 Wing, which is the base here. I have never served in the Canadian Forces, regrettably, but have come to know them very, very well. In my other life, I am a chartered accountant and a partner in a national accounting firm with 75 offices in Canada, so I understand budgeting stresses and money concerns.

I have a few areas I would like to talk about with you, and I know you have heard some of it before, particularly what I'm going to start out with. But I believe you've heard it before because it is so real and it is worth repeating.

The first thing I would like to turn to is the credibility and the great strength of our forces. Over the last 24 months, not only have we had, of course, the finest peacekeeping unit in the world, but they have fought floods at Saguenay; they have had the flood of the century to contend with in Winnipeg; and then, of course, there was the storm of the century in eastern Canada. During that storm, there were 54 states of emergency, 35 formal requests for Canadian Forces assistance, and 15,500 members of armed forces and reserve personnel involved in the largest domestic operation in Canadian history. Wing 22, by the way, was also part of that service.

The credits and the thanks that have been extended to the Canadian Forces are not new to you. You have heard them all: qualities of dedication, initiative, selflessness and determination, with standards of professionalism, excellence and teamwork. All of that you know.

• 1910

On top of that, I want to share with you something about 22 Wing, because you may not know about some of the outstanding standards of excellence that are achieved here. It applies to every base and every community you visit in Canada.

For instance, 22 Wing was stood up as the Canadian NORAD operations centre. We have the sector air operations centre here in North Bay.

We have achieved an excellence rating in an exercise called Amalgam Warrior and Global Guardian. That particular exercise was the largest NORAD strategic command exercise ever held in history, and this particular base and these particular people received a grading of excellence. In addition to that, they have undergone a “no notice” NORAD alert force evaluation and have again received outstanding ratings.

I know you understand how distinguished our Canadian Forces are, but the reason I want to emphasize it is because I believe what we have in Canada is the brightest and the best of our Canadian citizens. They're trained to a world-class level of competency. We owe no apologies for what their needs are, nor do we owe any apology for their tremendous achievements.

What does that lead to? It leads me to make a couple of comments, and I only want to make two comments on administrative issues. One is remuneration. If because of my earlier comments we understand that we have the brightest and the best young Canadians in this country trained to a world-class level, and if we want to remain competitive on the world stage, then we must remunerate on a competitive basis. Even more importantly, we must remunerate on a fair basis.

If as a chartered accountant with 75 offices across Canada I chose not to remunerate on a fair or competitive basis, we would be closing offices.

So I hope this committee hears from across Canada those simple standards: to be fair and to be competitive.

We have world-class individuals in our forces. We're already facing pressures in certain areas and we're losing people. To keep the people we have and to continue to grow with the brightest and the best of minds in this country, we have to be fair and we must be competitive.

Secondly, on issues of advancement and promotion, I have never experienced it, nor have I seen what I describe in my next comment, but I know it's in the minds of our personnel in the Canadian Forces. It is very important that there not be a glass ceiling in the area of promotions and advancement in the Canadian Forces. “Glass ceiling”—as you know, the sociological theory is that they are invisible. In order for them to be removed, whether they be gender or whether they be skills sets—in other words, only certain individuals achieve certain ranks. I think we must guard against that or we will not have diversity, we will not keep the brightest, and we will not keep the best.

So I'm hoping this committee will ensure and recommend that glass ceilings, whether real or perceived.... You see, if our people perceive they're there, that is also a great danger and a great harm. I'm hoping you can recommend that appropriate actions be taken to eliminate those possibilities.

I also want to comment about some social realities in the Canadian Forces. First of all, a simple understanding is that unhappy families can cause unhappy individuals, unhappy employees, and unhappy communities. Likewise, unhappy personnel can cause unhappy homes and difficult communities. It goes without saying that in the Canadian Forces our families have to be part of our team and part of the greater cause in Canada. To say anything else is to go against the very Canadian values we have.

• 1915

The problem that military families face because of the tremendous strain and demand that we as Canadians ask of them is that sometimes they are only in communities for six months or they could only be there for two years. Fortunately some of them are there for a little longer. The difficulty is they do not get to set deep community roots, and that is a serious issue.

I want to share with this committee something that has happened in North Bay. It's extremely sad and it's difficult to talk about. We have had a situation in this city recently where three young teenagers have chosen to take their lives. What is sadder about that is they all knew each other, they all did it on the ninth day of the month following the previous, and there's even suggestion that there was agreement to do it. It shocked this community.

What is harder is that our military friends, who also have children in those schools and have to deal with the same pressures and demands and issues, have less of a social net to turn to for help. They probably haven't known their doctor for the last 20 years. They probably don't know the principal or the guidance counsellor or the teachers by their first names or on a personal basis. They probably don't even know, on a formal or informal basis, their pastors. So it's hard to understand that we as a community can help them as readily as we help our own people, and yet we owe as much to them as we do to any citizen in our city.

Where do they turn? They turn, and they have to turn, to their own military community, and we must recognize that. I cannot believe that we are supporting our military communities and the extraordinary demands that are needed by tearing down base churches or by putting funding pressures on family centres, messes, or any other facilities that are meant to support the base, the families, and the needs.

If this committee can have any influence on those particular issues, I'm hoping you will express concern that we must remember people as being the strength of our forces.

Finally, as a citizen of our city, I have to say North Bay would not be what it is without the military. The military are present in every single aspect and personality of this community. They are there in sports; they are there leading sports; they are there coaching sports. They are leading our hospitals; they're involved in our colleges, our universities, our school system. North Bay could not and would not be what it is without the military and their people. It is to them that we as a community owe so much, and I'd like this committee to particularly know how much we appreciate that, because these are distinguished Canadians.

Mr. Chair, that concludes my remarks.

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

Just a second, Mr. Hargreaves. Could you just stay at the mike for a few minutes to see if the members of the committee would like to ask you some questions? I believe we do. We will start off with Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you for your presentation.

You mentioned a couple of concerns we have heard before, a couple of the key concerns with people in the military, one being pay and benefits proper. You call it fair and competitive remuneration.

The other is family concerns, such as short stay in the community and the lack of building up a long-term support base because of the frequent moves and the impact that can have on a situation such as you've had in your community, a very sad situation that affects the whole community. It really shakes the community to the roots.

• 1920

I know both of these concerns are concerns we've heard before, and we've heard others as well. I would like you to try to rank the two groups of concerns—one is the short stays in the community, and maybe along with that is frequent deployment, so families are split apart on a regular basis, that type of issue—and compare them with the two other issues you mentioned, the pay and benefits and also the lack of recognition for the importance of the military and the good work the military does.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: Because I'm not a professional member of the forces I'm speaking from a very disadvantaged position in trying to respond to your question. However, from what I have learned about our forces and about our individuals it is absolutely amazing to me what the families and the spouses give up as a family unit when a person makes a decision to follow a professional career in our Canadian Forces. I would have to assume, then, that to the member who joins the forces and the family unit which supports that member they are making the joint decision that first and foremost is the professional career as a military member of the Canadian Forces.

If you say that, I know people here who will probably have an awful lot of difficulty ever getting a job again in the profession they had, because they basically have given up their career to travel and go with their spouse. In fact, I have asked the spouses, how do you address that; how does your family unit deal with that? The response was amazing. The response was there is no way of dealing with it. They are simply a member of the military team.

If you believe that, if our military is made up of our serving members and their families as part of their team, then our obligation is very deep. I'm just not so sure our communities and our governments understand that. I certainly never did before I faced it.

So I would have to say I think it's a matter of remunerating them on a fair and competitive basis. I'm not asking or suggesting anything other than that.

I'm responsible for a business also and I understand what it is to meet a payroll. I question whether or not we're being fair and competitive with the members of our forces in light of their incredible achievements. That's why I took the trouble to be so repetitive with you at the first. It's simply overwhelming when you look at the worldwide achievement of our Canada Forces. I was told that before Colonel Hussey came here this particular base was looking at doing something like 95% of the tasks with 45% of the personnel—an astounding ratio. It's something you can't even imagine. Certainly in the corporate world we would wonder if you could do that.

Where the responsibility for that lies.... As a citizen I have to turn to our government to deal with those issues.

So if you ask me to rank them, I would think being fair and being competitive in remuneration for our personnel would probably be number one, because it would also affect the funding available to the family unit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I will follow up on that a little. Something announced recently is the $25,000 bonus for pilots to keep them in the military, because they are leaving in droves for private companies. I would like you to comment on that, whether that's something you see as a positive thing or whether in fact you see that it could cause problems with others who feel they offer a level of expertise that's equivalent to that of the pilots, yet they are getting no substantial pay increase of any kind.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: You're very kind in asking me that question.

I'm wondering if the other honorary colonel, who is twice my size, would be better at handling that. I agreed to speak tonight not to get into policy, but it does speak volumes, doesn't it, about being competitive and fair. You can tell, from the reaction in this room, where it starts and where it stops.

• 1925

Nobody here, I'm sure, is being critical of a member of the forces, and no one is, but I believe there are significant remuneration issues that must be restudied in the forces. I think it goes beyond pilots. It would be my only reflection—and I'm not saying pilots don't deserve that, because we have a problem there—that there are many other problems also.

Regrettably, you've never sat in front of a radar screen and tried to protect half of Canada. I tried to do that and had Vancouver blown up, so you don't want me doing their job, I'll tell you.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: These are highly skilled, highly trained individuals who go to work day after day, and I don't think we understand it.

Your point is well taken: How do we get the message out to Canada? I think maybe it starts here, with an initiative like this, but a lot more has to be done.

I don't know if I've responded to your question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Anybody else with any questions?

I have one question, Mr. Hargreaves. I want you to try to tell me what's fair and competitive. We're obviously looking at different issues, one of them being pay raises. You keep mentioning “fair”. What is fair, in your mind? Are you suggesting market comparability? What do you have in mind when you say “fair and competitive”? You must have a number in mind.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: Mr. Wood, I wish it were that easy.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We have a number in mind. We just want to make sure—

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: Well, my number might be bigger, you see.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's fine.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: So, Bob, I don't know if we want to do this.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): No, I want you to do it.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: That's making a very difficult issue a little too simple.

Let me turn to the issue of employment and pay equity. If anybody has ever sat through one of those evaluations or initiatives, you'll understand how difficult employment comparability is and how you ever determine what one job is compared with another for remuneration purposes. However, if you take the Canadian Forces and compare skills with the civilian world, I think you're going to find a very large difference.

Mr. Chair, if you're saying should we be paying 20% more, or 30% more, if you're looking for that kind of number, I guess it depends.

That seems to be okay with some people on this side of the room.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: We do have standards we can turn to for professions that function inside the forces and outside the forces to start the yardstick of comparability.

Regrettably, or maybe fortunately, there are things people do in the Canadian Forces that just aren't done in the outside world. I don't know how you do that comparability, but there has to be a way. We obviously are the finest country in the world, with the finest Canadian military and military force in the world, so we have to be able to solve a simple thing.

Being fair and competitive means everyone is treated fairly and remunerated for their sets of skills, and they are also developed. We do a lot of that.

I can't give you a 20% or 30%, if that's what you're looking for. What were you particularly looking for, dollars or a percentage?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We've heard anywhere from 10% to 15%. I wondered what your number was.

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: I believe they have been frozen for five years, so 25% to 35% wouldn't be out of line.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: That means I get to leave the building, I guess. Whew! That was close.

I want to thank you for that question, Chair.

Voices: Oh, oh.

• 1930

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): All right. No other questions? Thank you very much.

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Mr. Hargreaves, this morning I asked this question of other people. I don't think you were there. But anyway, I think the question I asked is...I guess money is not the only solution to the problem...and ever since I agreed with my colleague, Leon Benoit, he has been wandering around looking for a church in order to see what God did to him!

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. George Proud: But anyway, we both agreed this morning that there has to be more of a commitment from us, especially from government, and I think we heard a lot of concerns about the things that used to be there and aren't there any more. You mentioned this business of families with no one to go to and that type of thing.

Money is a big problem; there's no doubt about that. But I also believe.... And I happen to be the senior member on this committee; I've been on it for a number of years. I've seen the situation happen over those years while the cutbacks and all of this have gone on and on, and we're seeing the results of it today, right down to the very bottom. I believe that we must have a commitment. We must have a commitment from government and from the top brass of the military that this will be rectified. And as for money, like we all know, we'd all like to have more of it, but other things also have to go along with it. Do you agree with that?

Mr. Ted Hargreaves: Absolutely. I just want to emphasize though that there are two kinds of money. Actually, there are many kinds of money, but I want to talk about just two of them.

One of them is the pay raise, remuneration to the individual. But if you do that, if you give that to the personnel, and then you tell the base commander that “by the way, we're cutting your operating budget by 35%”, how does the base commander run churches, recreation centres, family centres and the mess? It's impossible.

There must be appropriate funding on both the operating side and the staffing side. To do only one of them is to do maybe even greater harm. I would hope that this committee would suggest that full financial study and compensation should be advanced to the Canadian Forces, not just halfway.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thanks a lot, Mr. Hargreaves.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next we'd like to hear from Captain McLeod.

Captain Trevor McLeod (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Trevor McLeod. I work here on base in the underground with 21 Squadron. The topic that I would like to put to you has to do with the Canadian Forces superannuation fund.

By way of background, Mr. Garth Turner, in a book of his, proposed that by the year 2015 the Canada Pension Plan will be broke, out of money, with no benefits, as a result of the increasing numbers of people receiving benefits and the decreasing numbers of people in the workforce contributing to the fund.

On the surface it might appear that the Canadian Forces superannuation fund is facing a similarly bleak future or circumstance. I've been part of a briefing in the last couple of years where it was pointed out to the group that I was with that currently we now have more people receiving military pension benefits than we have in the military contributing to the fund.

So my topic has to do with the viability of the Canadian Forces pension. Specifically, what, if anything, makes the CF pension fund any less at risk that the CPP? And what steps are currently being taken to ensure that the fund will continue in its viability?

I'm not sure if any one of you is currently able to respond to that, though.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Oh, are you finished?

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I expected a little bit more.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I'm sorry. I was just checking here, because I know some changes have been made made to the pension fund. I was just trying to find out what they were.

Are there any questions? Yes, Mr. Proud.

• 1935

Capt Trevor McLeod: If we can stand one more opinion on a couple of items that were just discussed, Mr. Benoit, regarding your question to Mr. Hargreaves on the pilot incentive money, I am speaking for myself only here, and I believe that money would be less of a bitter pill to swallow for me had my own pay not been frozen for a number of years. Not just the cost-of-living increases, but the actual annual experience incentives were also frozen for a number of years.

The way we are now being remunerated is in these small steps of 1%. I'm not saying those are going to be insignificant in the long run, but taken at face value at the time, you have to admit that 1% or 1.15% does seem rather insignificant. So when we see a large amount of money going to a specific cross-section of the military, it is hard to swallow.

I'm a firm believer in the power and the forces of the economic supply and demand ratios here, so if the skills of pilots are in greater demand, that has to be acknowledged. But when you're looking at the rest of the military, you are still going to continue to have the grumbling. I would imagine that's a fairly common sentiment.

Mr. Proud, regarding your comment concerning the commitment of our political leaders, I think a word I would use, rather than “commitment”, in this case, would be “loyalty”. We in the military have been taught from day one when we enlisted that loyalty is one of the prime traits we're going to be called upon to display. From day one, I have always learned that loyalty is something that goes up and goes downwards, so from the top down and from our political leaders.

By loyalty, what I'm thinking of is having our politicians know enough about the military so that when we do get called into action and we commit forces, suddenly they're not having the House of Commons in an uproar wondering why our ships can't sail, because they have gone into a certain state. I won't say “disrepair”, but their mission had been changed to the mission we committed them to. So the fact that they couldn't sail to the Gulf War in the early 1990s, because they had to be refitted to perform a new duty.... I don't believe there was sufficient knowledge within the House of Commons as to the roles the Canadian Forces train for every day compared to the roles we often get committed to.

To me, that's loyalty. We are trying to be loyal to the Canadian people and we are trying to be loyal to our leaders. I'm just hoping that loyalty is given back in return as well.

I don't know, sir, if you do have a response to my earlier question. It might just be something that you can take back with you and perhaps address later.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I understand. For me, anyway, and I think for a lot of people, it's a very complicated issue. It's pretty safe to say that the pensions aren't going to disappear, and from what I gather—and I could be wrong, and maybe Mr. Pratt can elaborate—the government covers the liability.

David?

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): My understanding is that the pension contributions that members of the forces make are similar to those of public servants, in that it's a contributory plan, obviously, but the liabilities that exist within the plan are absorbed by the government as a whole through the consolidated revenue fund. So the government will honour any outstanding liabilities that exist. It's not a question of the fund going broke, in other words.

On the Canada Pension Plan issue, the increases we've seen in the Canada Pension Plan premiums that will phase in over the next few years are intended to put the Canada Pension Plan on an actuarially sound basis. There were predictions that the Canada Pension Plan would be in serious trouble, but the increases are going to ensure that it remains a sound public pension for Canadians well into the future.

Capt Trevor McLeod: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Mr. Benoit has a question, and then Madame Venne will be next.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Even though I can't answer your question about the superannuation fund in the military pension, I was going to comment on your quote from Garth Turner's book.

Again, there were at least two ways to respond to that situation, and what Garth Turner said was absolutely correct. We have about a $600 billion unfunded liability in the Canada Pension Plan right now.

• 1940

One way to respond to it is the way this government did, which was to increase premiums by about 73% over the next five years, still having a maximum pay-out of $8,800 a year no matter what happens in the future—an extremely small pension for the premiums that are being paid. Another way, though, is to allow more flexibility, allow people to put into their personal plan. The returns would be much better and the pension at the end, according to work we've done, would be $30,000 to $40,000 a year, as compared with the $8,800 under the current plan; and that's with the same premiums.

So there are the two ways to go. That doesn't answer the question about superannuation in the military pension fund, but it does respond to your comment on the Garth Turner book.

The other thing I wanted to comment on was your comments on Canada committing to an operation overseas when we're not ready. Over the past six or seven years we've seen every time foreign affairs ministers have been asked, they say yes, we can go, yes, we can go, yes, we can go. At these meetings across the country again and again and again we've heard people who have been on overseas postings say maybe we have said yes too often, because we weren't ready, we didn't have proper equipment, and we're short of people.

Here we are again. Now we're going to be asked to go into this new situation in the former Yugoslavia. What is our government going to say? Is it going to commit a bunch more Canadian troops to that situation? With the cutbacks that have taken place, are we going to have the people to do it? Are we going to continue to deploy too often? How long is the commitment there going to be again? Are we going to have the proper equipment? We sure haven't had it in the past. All of these questions should be clearly answered before the foreign affairs minister says yes and commits our troops.

Capt Trevor McLeod: Sir, my comments had less to do with the government we have now, the current foreign minister—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm speaking in general terms.

Capt Trevor McLeod: —or the government that was in place back in 1990-91. They had to do with the concept of politicians and their loyalty back down to the people who are serving them.

Through loyalty, if I have subordinates in my line of work, I have to understand their job and the roles they are filling before I commit them. So I try to take the time to understand their job and what it is they are doing each and every day. That is the point I was making. I wasn't speaking about any particular party or any particular government, simply the House of Commons, of which you're all members.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the point is the House of Commons doesn't make that decision at all. That decision is made by the foreign affairs minister. It is the foreign affairs minister, in conjunction with the prime minister, who makes that decision. If we have any debate in the House of Commons on these issues at all, it's after the decision has been made. We have absolutely no impact whatsoever on that decision.

Capt Trevor McLeod: Sir, my difference is not with the right or authority of the government of the day to make those decisions to commit. My difference is with the content of that debate, which clearly shows that the people who are governing us and leading us in all the parties—by that I mean the parties in opposition and the parties in power—are clearly showing a lack of understanding, and to my mind I am perceiving that as a lack of loyalty back to the people who are serving them.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I understand what you're saying now.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Don't go away, Captain McLeod. We're not finished with you just yet. You can't get away that easily. We have just a quick supplementary from Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: I just want to follow up on what you're saying about the House of Commons and its lack of knowledge.

As I understand it, there are about 16 members on this committee, when they are all here. Right there is probably the biggest support the military has in the House of Commons, and that's unfortunate. That's a fact of life. That's a real, hard fact of life. It's hard to get support in the House of Commons for the military. I've said this every place I go. If the government ever wants to cut anything, that's the first place they can cut and sell it to the public, and we see the results of it today.

• 1945

We as members of this committee have to now do a better job of selling that, of informing these people, of getting them up and getting them interested. Some of them you're never going to change. You're never going to make people believe in the military until they need it.

I've always been a believer in it—that just happens to be the way I am—but there's an awful lot of people who are not. I don't think I'll ever change their minds, but you're right; it's too bad that there is that ignorance of it, and it's ignorance because people don't want to belong, to believe in it. I don't know if the 16 of us can convince the other 200 and however many people who are there that it's a good idea, but we have to try.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We're going to Madame Venne and we'll come back.

[Translation]

Ms. Venne, you have the floor.

Ms. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Regarding your question on pension plans, I would simply like to point out that we are not here to answer questions but to hear your concerns and then report on them and make recommendations. I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you.

Capt Trevor McLeod: Thank you, Madam.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Mr. Benoit has another question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I just want to follow up on the comment made by Mr. Proud. He's right in saying that 16 or 20 members of Parliament who have a commitment to the military—and I believe there are that many, some from each political party....

Maybe they can't, but if the Prime Minister would come out and clearly say just once—although it should be much more often than that—that Canada needs a strong military, that the very future of our country depends on having a strong military, and that the men and women who are in the military are doing a good job, if we heard that from the Prime Minister, then that would have a huge impact on the way the Canadian public and Parliament perceive the military.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Capt Trevor McLeod: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next I'd like to call on Mr. Pringle.

Mr. Brian Pringle (Individual Presentation): Thank you, Mr. Chair. My name is Brian Pringle. I'm a retired petty officer second class, plus I'm married to a serving member of the forces.

What I wish to bring to this committee's attention is the subject of the military justice system. Hopefully I'll only take about 10 minutes. I'm not going to go through this entire book.

The justice system in the military isn't limited just to summary trials and court martials. It affects the daily application of everything. If military orders are not seen to be honestly applied, both in fact and in perception, it's going to involve morale, trust or mistrust in the leadership, and the efficiency with which people do their jobs.

This creation of additional bureaucratic levels, such as the Canadian Forces grievance board, is going to do very little, if anything, to improve how military justice actually is dealt with. Unless the leadership of the Canadian Forces at all levels.... I'm not standing here saying “Go out and shoot the generals”. All levels of leadership in the Canadian Forces have to honestly apply the military orders. No level of overseeing authority is going to improve how the military enforces the justice system until all levels of leadership start being honest.

I'm saying to this committee and to everybody in this room that the CF justice system is systemically dishonest, and I'm willing to submit this presentation to this committee. I believe it proves what I'm saying. I've signed my name to it. I have no concerns with legal ramifications from what I've said in here.

• 1950

I would like to draw to the attention of this committee that I think most people believe that no individual in the Canadian Forces should be above the law.

The leadership of the military has to somehow be depoliticized. That's probably going to upset a few people by what they think I'm saying. But what I'm saying is they have to be more accountable for their actions or inactions—not just what they do, but what they don't do.

There's a military ethos that the Canadian Forces took great pride in publishing in the Canadian Forces Personnel Newsletter, issue 2/90. I'd like to make four quotes from that, if I might. First, what is a military ethos?

A military ethos can be defined as a distinctive or characteristic set of beliefs held by the military community or culture. The ethos is derived from the military virtues of truth, duty, valour, integrity, loyalty, courage, and commitment.

In the actual military ethos itself, as printed in that newsletter:

We accept that the authority to apply such power requires that our profession be properly structured, with adherence to a clearly defined chain of command and obedience to a code of conduct, in our case: “The Code of Service Discipline”.

My third quote:

We believe that the military society is a good society embodying those moral virtues, which affect our relations with our comrades in arms and our own selves, of: prudence, justice, patriotism, obedience, veracity, and patience. We believe that these values, derived from a traditional code of ethics, fit into and form part of those of contemporary Canadian society.

And the final quote:

We accept that it is essential for all members to clearly display loyalty, first to the country, then to the group, and finally to each member of the chain of command, both senior and junior to them, before taking thought for themselves.

I'd like to emphasize that my interpretation of that last one in regard to displaying loyalty to the group is that honest application of and adherence to military orders, more specifically the National Defence Act, are required. If the chain of command is dishonest, it can't expect or demand loyalty of any kind.

Even though I'm a retired petty officer second class, I was trained by the RCAF a number of years ago. I was trained to trust my leaders. I was trained to believe in what the Canadian military was and that the military laws meant something. Over the past 30 years, although I didn't do 30 years in the forces, I've watched the leadership of the Canadian Forces grow from one I would have followed anywhere at any time to become one of which I question quite quickly whether I would cross the street with a lot of people I've met and served under. I am not referring to anybody in this room, because I've never served at this base, but I have a documentary submission here that I hope the committee will take and look at seriously. I have signed my name to it and I'm available at any time for this committee.

Thank you for your time.

Voices: Hear, hear!

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

Maybe the chair could ask for a little clarification. When you talk about the military justice system, are you talking about the old military justice system or the new Bill C-25, which is now just going through second reading and should be coming to this committee in the next week or so?

Mr. Brian Pringle: I'm basically talking about the old and the new.

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

Mr. Brian Pringle: I have read this overview of the amendments to the National Defence Act. What I'm trying to bring to this committee's attention is my belief that no matter what oversight committees or bodies get created, if the leadership of the Canadian Armed Forces doesn't honestly apply its own laws.... And the laws they had prior to any charter rights acts were good laws. In the RCAF we didn't worry about whether we were doing what we could or couldn't do. We were taught what our rights were, what our military rights were, not human rights, and they weren't that different.

• 1955

The old justice system, if honestly applied, would stand the test of time, I believe. I don't believe for one second, based on my first-hand experience with the justice system—and it's an ugly one—that any oversight committee is going to help.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Okay. We do have some other questions for you.

[Translation]

We will start with Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Bill C-25 has not yet been adopted, and it will soon be reviewed by a parliamentary committee. You say that you are not satisfied with it anyway. Judging by what you say, I have the impression you are referring to things you probably went through yourself. Are all the situations you refer to described in your paper? Could you be more specific when you say that military justice is not honest? Could you tell us why exactly? This statement is quite harsh. I would like you to tell us if you can talk to us about this and if you wish to table your document. If so, we could have a copy of it.

[English]

Mr. Brian Pringle: I'd rather not go into detail about what's in here. I'll gladly give it to the clerk.

I will give you a broad idea of what's quoted on the first page in one paragraph:

The documentation enclosed in, and referred to in this submission proves that commissioned officers and others violated numerous military orders. Orders such as:

QR&O 103.28 Abuse of Inferiors;

QR&O 103.29 False Accusations or Statements;

QR&O 103.56 Negligent Performance of Duties;

QR&O 103.57 Offences in Relation to Documents;

QR&O 103.60 Conduct to the Prejudice of Good Order and Discipline.

Yes, Madam, I did refer to what's happened in my life as first-hand experience. Other than the covering letter and the index and three-page brief notes, there are 14 tabs in here containing documents from DND.

You can totally disregard what I say in my letter. Read the documents from DND. The dishonesty of the Canadian Forces justice system in this particular situation goes from base level, commander of the command, chief of defence staff, postings and careers in NDHQ, and DPLS, which I understand to be the Director of Personnel Legal Services in NDHQ, providing false evidence to the Government of Canada. It is a harsh statement I make, that the CF justice system is systemically dishonest.

What I'm trying to say is, there's a general attitude within the justice system that I experienced. The basic attitude—and I think one of the documents in here even says it, although I'm paraphrasing now—is that these are the statements of officers, and basically, who the heck was I to be challenging them? I was stupid enough, if you wish, to believe in QR&Os about grievances. I was stupid enough to believe that systemically, our justice system in the military would prevent injustice, and when confronted with it, would stop it. I was proven wrong. My career was destroyed by this. I personally was almost destroyed by this.

• 2000

I don't know what more I can say other than to present the documentation to this committee. I stand ready to come to talk to any of you people anytime, at my expense. I'll come down to Ottawa; it's only a four-hour drive, probably three hours now that spring has come.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Brian Pringle: I hope that answers your question.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Merci.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. I'm sure we'll take you up on your offer, Mr. Pringle.

Mr. Benoit, do you have some questions?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pringle, I'm looking forward to reading your document, and to start with, I'd like to talk to you, if I may, at the break.

When you say, though, that the military justice system is fundamentally dishonest because the leadership in the military is dishonest...is that the statement you made?

Mr. Brian Pringle: I believe you're getting what I'm saying. It's an attitude thing.

The military attitude that I ran into in this was that I was in enlisted rank so it was “how dare you challenge an officer?” A full colonel decided to remind me that what I was challenging was a document he had initiated. I might be navy, but I'm not stupid. I know the difference when I write something about a colonel—the attitude.... There was a time when right, wrong, or indifferent, people would instinctively apply military rules honestly and let the cards fall where they may. There was none of this “Oh my God, I'm a P-2 and I want to become a P-1, so I had better shut up” or “I'm a lieutenant and I want to become a captain”. That attitude existed throughout history—I don't doubt that—but it has become a predominant attitude. At least prior to my retiring it was definitely predominant. It may have changed again.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Certainly we've had the Somali inquiry and we've had other studies that have pointed out some flaws in the military justice system. I've said on many occasions that certain instances point to a real problem with leadership, at least with a particular leadership, I would say. I've heard a lot of people—including the media—say that there is a widespread problem with leadership in the military.

When I made a comment something like that at a committee just a couple of weeks ago...and I can't remember the gentleman's name, but we had some professors there from university who are military experts, and they said to me, “You know what happens...you just said to me a few minutes ago that the men and women in the military are good people and that should be acknowledged, so why is it that when they get to the officer rank, to the upper ranks, suddenly they're not good people?”

And that's a good question. I don't think there is that transition. Maybe some are somehow damaged with leadership, but they have to be the same basic people. They have to be good people, generally. So is it the people who get into the positions of leadership or is it the system that they're forced to operate in? I think that's an extremely important question. Is it that a lot of the leaders, really most leaders...? You would assume that most of the leaders want to do a good job of leading and that they really care about the people they're leading, the people they're put in charge of. So if that's the case, then it has to be a problem with the system, and certainly one of the....

We had General Clive Addy as a witness just a couple of weeks ago at this committee, and he made two key points. First, he said that it's time in this country that government, including the Prime Minister, stands up and acknowledges the importance of the military and the good job being done. The second thing he said is that we have a real problem with the department, the civil service side of the military, interfering in the military itself, to a point that the leadership can't do what they know they should do. I would just like to ask you if maybe that isn't.... Both may be kind of simplistic explanations of what is wrong, but is that maybe not a better explanation of what's wrong with leadership, the system rather than the individuals who lead?

• 2005

Mr. Brian Pringle: As far as the end result answer to that is concerned, I believe this committee will have to decide that themselves.

I would draw your attention back to the Somalia inquiry only briefly. I saw a full general and an admiral on TV who, to put it politely, didn't exactly impress me with their integrity.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Disgusting is what it was, yes.

Mr. Brian Pringle: I'm not going down that road.

First of all, what I'm saying here and the point I'm trying to make to this committee is that I'm not trying to indict the officer corps. When it comes to leadership in the armed forces, basically from a master corporal on up you're in a leadership-type role. If at the very lowest level of leadership, that being master corporal, on up to the Chief of the Defence Staff, in which we only have one full general, supposedly, if from the bottom to the top you don't practise military policy, orders, laws, rules, regulations honestly, what does it matter if you have ten oversight committees? If they're not honest with this committee, for example, if they won't follow the rules that are already there, enacted by the House of Commons.... The only point I'm trying to make is that if you don't revert to some integrity and hold people accountable....

You've had stories in the media in the past couple of years of a general who got to retire who supposedly had embezzled some number of thousands of dollars. I don't know if that's true or not, but it was in the media. If I had done that as a finance clerk in the navy, you can rest assured I wouldn't have been allowed to retire quietly. I'd probably still be in jail.

You have a colonel in Ottawa who was found floating in the Rideau Canal not too long ago. Find a junior rank in the armed forces of any uniform....

Mr. Leon Benoit: But my question is, are these relatively isolated incidents?

Mr. Brian Pringle: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You believe—

Mr. Brian Pringle: I'll draw your attention, point blank, to the army. We don't have officially or legally a navy, army, or air force; we haven't since 1968. But you look, when you go to your army bases to have these town halls, at what's the attitude from the speakers. The army, from my experience, are brain dead. I'm talking about the system, not individuals. I have met any number of people in army uniforms, from privates up to and including even the occasional general that I respect, but the army system is brain dead. Their system is “I'll do what I want because I can. I have the rank; I'll do what I want.”

The navy isn't a whole lot better, but they have a bit more class than the army. The air force I hope isn't even in that ball game. But that's a system, from my understanding of the term “system”.

The Canadian Forces justice system is supposed to apply to everybody, no matter what uniform you wear. But you go to different environmental bases or units, and you'll find that the same rules are applied differently. You'll find few people in an army base.... I'll even suggest where it could be you go and visit: CFB Shilo, Manitoba, the home station of the artillery. I have a great love for them, in case it doesn't show. You'll find a whole different reaction from the audience. I know for a fact that the people on this base were told: “This is your opportunity; come out and say whatever is on your mind.” From first-hand experience, that shocked me, in other environments, when I heard that this was this direction coming from the head of this place, to say what's on your mind and don't worry about it.

Even the navy, as much as I love the navy and I love sailing—I was on surface ships, not submarines—they wouldn't have done that. So there is a difference. Is it the system? Is it the Canadian Forces, that they're all wrong?

In 1990 they published that ethos in a Canadian Forces personnel newsletter that goes out to the armed forces in general. This was no inter-office memo. They have the ethics; they have the values; they have the rules. They're in writing. They're not honestly applied. This documentation will show that to you, I believe.

• 2010

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Mr. Pringle. I believe those are all our questions. I would like to ask you to table your remarks if you so wish. You can just drop them off.

Next is Honorary Colonel Richardson.

Mr. Philip Richardson (Honorary Colonel, 21 Squadron, Canadian Forces Base North Bay): Good evening, Mr. Chair, committee members, and ladies and gentlemen of the audience. As you can see, I am the other guy, and my number is higher.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Philip Richardson: Tonight I'll keep my remarks brief. I can tell you by way of a little background that I've been very privileged to be associated with the armed forces in a couple of stages in my life. I was an air force brat, so my pedigree goes back a long ways in so far as my experience with the military goes.

Most recently I've had the honour of being appointed to serve as the honorary colonel for 21 squadron. It's been a great experience for me. As an average Canadian, I've had the unusual opportunity of seeing the operation of the air force up close. I've had the opportunity to meet many wonderful men and women who are the basis for our service and I've certainly seen the results of a lot of their activities that have been in many cases crucial to our country's well-being.

Tonight probably the best message I can provide to the committee is one of appreciation to the air force and its personnel for the mission it serves and for what it successfully provides for the Canadian people.

I would say that, unfortunately, appreciation is in rather short supply, or it has been, and that's something I believe all of us would like to see corrected. The execution of the mission that's given to these men and women ought to be highlighted more and should certainly be exposed more to the Canadian people.

We as Canadians very often only come to appreciate the military's good effect and its essential role in our society at times of crisis. There have been domestic crises in which the military has certainly comported itself extremely well and has been extremely helpful to many average citizens in our country. But we have to understand and we have to help the Canadian people understand that the delivery of that very high-quality help and assistance is made possible by a required commitment by our country to providing the necessary support, financial and otherwise, to the organization so it can fulfil these duties we give to it.

Let's not forget the fact that many times in our relatively short history, we've had to call upon many people serving in the forces to make many sacrifices. We still do today. These people are prepared to step forward, at any time we want them to, to fulfil these essential duties.

We should often remember the ultimate sacrifice that was paid by many of these service members, many of them younger than most people sitting here in this audience before you today. Let's not forget that governments have failed to appreciate the essential need that is fulfilled by the military at key times in our history, and we've paid for it.

So we can't afford to treat this any way but very seriously. That appreciation has to come not only in the form of pleasant news stories but also in the form of financial support. I should tell you that in my many discussions with the men and women of the service, when the subject of money comes up, quite honestly the great majority of the discussion has to deal with not their personal wants and needs but rather with the fact that they want to have sufficient support and finance available to provide for the professional effect that they want to deliver on our behalf as Canadians. And of course they naturally have families to support and they're entitled to a fair living in order to be able to accomplish that.

• 2015

So yes, my number is higher, and it's higher for a particular reason. I think that we must not only gain more appreciation ourselves, we must communicate that on a very regular basis to the rest of our citizens in this country so that when the time comes for us to call upon them.... We have to be reminded that we can't invent an air force, an army or a navy by snapping our fingers or throwing money at a particular problem at a time of crisis. Instead, this is a continuing day-to-day investment that must be recognized and made available by our leadership to ensure that when we call upon them they are there, they have the equipment and they have all of the facilities necessary to deliver the response that we require of them.

I would ask that the committee, if it can deliver no other message, deliver a message of appreciation for the essential requirement we have served by these dedicated men and women.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I believe we have some questions, Mr. Richardson, starting with Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I really appreciated a chance to chat with you over dinner. I appreciated your comments. We talked about ways in which you saw yourself—not just you, but certainly you in your hononary position—and members of Parliament and others promoting the need for the military, the job the military is doing and the need for commitment to the military, in terms of words from government, certainly, and in terms of money so that they can get proper equipment and be paid properly and have proper benefits.

You've mentioned briefly how you think that can be done. Do you have any other ideas you can add to that? What can be done and who should be doing it to let Canadians know that the military is important, that we can't just depend on the United States to protect us, and to also point out the important roles that the military does perform?

Mr. Philip Richardson: I'm certainly only one person. I'm sure there are many opinions in this room—and I hope they're expressed—as to just how we can accomplish that important mission which is based on communication. I think it ought to be handled at all levels.

For example, I've had the privilege of being able to bring veterans of our efforts in Bosnia to the high school of my children where I've had the opportunity to have all the history classes of the entire school hear them describe what their experience was like. I think that certainly ought to be repeated in other places.

I must tell you that I was very impressed with the question-and-answer period; we ran out of time before we ran out of questions. There was a very lively discussion and certainly a great eagerness to learn. And I think that applies to people of all ages, once given the opportunity. Therefore, it's incumbent upon our leadership to provide the forum and the opportunity to communicate those messages.

Again, I think our youths are entitled to a fair opportunity to learn and to dialogue. There's one example of what I'm sure are many good ideas that could be pursued. I think it's a matter of people like Mr. Hargreaves and myself and others having the privilege and the opportunity to get out and to learn, first of all, and secondly, to communicate what we learn about the dedication of our military to forums or to anyone who will listen to us.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

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

Mr. Philip Richardson: Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

• 2020

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next I'd like to call on Major Sherwood.

Major George Sherwood (Individual Presentation): I wasn't sure you were going to be able to say you would like to call on me.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You know me too well.

Maj George Sherwood: Or you know me.

Mr. Chairman, committee members, ladies and gentlemen, I have many concerns, and after having listened to some of the things I've heard tonight, boy, would I like to respond to some of the questions that have been asked. But I'll restrict my comments to the three issues I advertised I would speak on, and if you have any questions afterwards, I'll be happy to respond on any of the other issues that were brought up.

I'd like to speak to three issues: spousal employment, posting cutbacks, and a sense of abandonment of the military. Some of those have already been broached to some extent tonight.

On the first issue, as a condition of our employment, military members are subject to frequent moves. This results in significant spousal career upheaval. Due to prevailing attitudes in local communities, it takes one to two years to get a part-time position, one or two years to work up to a full-time position, and then we're moved. As a result, not only does each family suffer financially, but the family is put under considerable stress and the spouse is left feeling cheated, inadequate, and vulnerable.

I would like to see a proactive placement office established at each base to assist our spouses by canvassing the local community for positions and passing opportunities on to incoming members.

Local community attitudes need a change. Yes, we only stay three or four years, but we do stay three or four years, which is considerably longer than a goodly portion of the workforce. Our spouses come fully trained and with significant work experiences from other areas of the country.

On the second item of posting cutbacks, in an effort to meet government-imposed funding restrictions, the government has cut back posts this year and apparently next year to the point where only default postings are being actioned. By default postings I mean those where personnel are coming off one-year courses or tours in the Golan. Members are even volunteering to pay for their own moves, but these offers are being turned down. As a result, the wrong people are being put in the wrong jobs. Essential jobs are not being filled and personnel are staying on bases where there are no jobs for them.

Ladies and gentlemen, career development is a thing of the past. The posting reductions this year are too severe. It is essential that this situation be rectified now by increasing the funding available to this operationally essential service.

On my last point, I would like to state that I feel the Canadian military has been abandoned by the Canadian government. We have suffered cut after cut after cut. We have seen a number of years of pay freezes, followed only recently by minuscule adjustments. Our infrastructure and equipment are rotting into the ground. We are starting to get some bits and pieces of new cold-weather clothing, but not all that is required—no boots, no gloves—and not fast enough.

Decisions such as the future of North Bay are simply not being made, leaving us hanging with the resultant stress that brings with it.

Then there is the latest tactic, where the government has handed the knife, alternate service delivery, to the military so we can cut ourselves. The government does not have to take the responsibility for the cuts and the resultant impact on people's lives or on the operational viability of the Canadian Forces.

• 2025

I believe it is essential that the Canadian government determine exactly what it wants by way of a Canadian military and that it advertises those requirements to the Canadian Forces and the Canadian population in terms that all will understand.

In closing, I ask that you take steps to put in place a proactive spousal employment program and immediately take steps to increase funding for postings.

Lastly, I ask that each and every one of you take as a personal mission to ensure that the recommendations coming out of your study come into effect quickly, thereby reducing this sense of abandonment.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Major Sherwood. It was an excellent presentation, and I know we have lots of questions. We'll start with Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much for your presentation. It was concise and I think well put. I have questions in a few areas.

First, I want to say that I think what we have heard at these hearings—and not just during the hearings, but after when chatting with people—is that one of the greatest concerns is the level of uncertainty. You mentioned the need for government to decide what it wants the military to be there for, and then to clearly announce that so the men and women in the forces can make decisions based on that. Certainly no organization can withstand the level of uncertainty that the military has been exposed to for as long as that and have any kind of reasonable morale.

I want to ask you a question on your posting cutbacks. What I think I heard you saying is it's really hard to get the training you need to develop a career because of posting cutbacks. I'm not sure. I'd like you to elaborate so I understand clearly what you're saying.

What we've heard at some other bases, in fact quite commonly, is that some people are concerned that they're getting too many postings. They get an overseas posting, which they fully expect and accept. They say that's great; in the military we expect that. People with families, especially, say the family's split apart for that amount of time, but we expect that. But then they come back, and very quickly they're posted somewhere else, and then maybe a year later posted again for a prolonged posting, which splits the family apart again and again, and also uproots the family so that they're moving more than they feel is reasonable. That we've heard a lot as we've visited the various bases.

Are you saying something different, or are you saying postings must be there for people who want the postings, to help develop a career?

Maj George Sherwood: There's a dichotomy in the application of postings and postings policies.

In the past, we posted our people every three years, and 25% of the military moved every three years, plus or minus. Some people moved every four years and some people moved every two years, but they generally were moved every three years. That was not, in my mind, a sensible policy. You're being moved because it's time for you to move.

On the other hand, the cuts we've received this year are so severe.... I can only give you a personal example. In my trade, some 250 military engineers, this year we have 10 moves. That's a long way from 25%. In fact there are 11 default moves this year, people coming back from the Golan, people coming back off one-year French courses, so we only have 10 moves and we have 11 people that absolutely, essentially, have to be moved and there's no choice. The resultant impact is that a position I was vying for this year is going to an individual, newly promoted, and I, with nine years in rank, will sit here and that position will go by the wayside.

• 2030

Another example, a similar type of problem: I have an individual I would like to move on compassionate basis, and that individual cannot move because there's no money to move.

We have people who are over-ranked, under-ranked, not necessarily the right individuals for the positions, and no opportunity to move them out or move them in. It's a real problem.

The cuts—yes, we were moving too often. We've gone way too far on the cuts. I'm not suggesting we go back to every three years; I'm suggesting that we've gone too far.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I have a couple of questions, Major, maybe just a bit of a clarification.

On the spousal employment, you talked about a proactive placement office, which is an excellent idea, but how do you envision that working? Are you saying that it should be done at the base? Are you saying it should be done in conjunction with the community through the chamber of commerce? How do you envision that taking place?

Maj George Sherwood: That's a real good question. I know we have a severe problem and it's a significant problem. It's a problem that leads to the break-up of families. It's a problem that leads to severe stress.

I searched my soul for a long time. I have some 25 years in the service and I've done a lot of moves. My wife has changed careers at least four times. I mean completely changed careers—not changed jobs, changed careers—in an effort to accommodate the local community and the career fields that were available in that community.

There has to be a way to open up the community to make it more receptive to these people who are moving in and out. We have no problem coming in and being the boy scout leader, no problem at all. There's always an opening for us. We're always welcome. We have no problem coming in and being the hockey coach. There's always an opening for another hockey coach. Why is there not another opening for a nurse? Why is there not another opening for a lab technician? Why is there not another opening for a bank teller? Those positions never seem to be there. That employment never seems to be there, and I don't know why.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I think there's a general consensus that it's a great problem, and the committee obviously would like to do something about it. This seemed to be a pretty excellent idea. I'm just trying to get my head around it. How can we do it?

Maj George Sherwood: How do we apply it? I don't know if you can apply it as the base resource person at the local employment office or if you apply it as an employment agent at the family resource centre on the base or if the personnel selection officer is empowered and tasked to handle that kind of situation. We've only recently—just this year, I believe—authorized the payment and preparation of résumés for our spouses upon removal. The first step—absolutely flabbergasting; I can't believe it's actually happened.

There has to be some way to then catalogue those things and get them to the next place. When the spouse comes in and the family comes in on a house-hunting trip, there should be a list of jobs or positions that can be available and they can apply for three months ahead of getting here so that they know they're both going to something, there's something for both of them at the other end.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I must have hit on something. Three of my colleagues want to ask you questions.

Mrs. Longfield.

• 2035

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Major Sherman, I certainly understand and can appreciate the difficulty there is for spouses finding jobs. I don't think anyone suggests that they aren't qualified, but isn't there a mindset in the civilian community, and don't we have to break through that? I talk to women and men, spouses of military personnel, and they know that the jobs are there in the community. Employers will admit that they have all the qualifications but they are reluctant to hire someone who may move in six months, a year, or two years. How do we get into the mindset of those people?

Maj George Sherwood: When we came to North Bay.... I really don't like using personal examples, but I will. When we went to Halifax my wife changed careers and went out of the medical field where she was working and went back into the banking field, where she had ten years experience. She worked her way up, as I expressed, part-time, full-time, and eventually she was the head teller at the Bank of Nova Scotia. Moving from Halifax to here, she thought she would stay with the banking business. She took a three-month leave of absence and applied for a transfer.

One would think that a woman with four brothers who are bank managers with the Bank of Nova Scotia would have some pull, as well as being a head teller and with previous employment in Ottawa where she had sixty women working for her. This is a lady who should be well qualified as both a supervisor and a working professional. When she put her application in here, she put her postal code down—POH 1PO.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Game over.

Maj George Sherwood: Game over. Joyce watched six new employees go to work in the local banks during the three months that she was on leave of absence as an employee of the Bank of Nova Scotia. What can I do?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I wish I knew. But just as you're challenging us to help raise the public awareness of the military, I think that along with that we also have to raise the mindsets of those employers in those communities, because these could be some of their most valuable experienced employees.

Maj George Sherwood: Joyce managed to get back into the medical laboratory business. She's working with the Canadian Medical Laboratories downtown. They made her guarantee that she was going to be here another year. Of course she was thinking that she couldn't guarantee anything, but she said yes, of course.

What I don't understand in this is that they don't have to invest anything in her. This is a lady who is more qualified than her supervisor, as we discussed today at lunch, and who has trained the people in the company that she joined on three new systems because they didn't understand how to operate them and she was previously qualified.

There are all kinds of examples through the room of professional people who have come from other areas of the country who have different qualifications, who have training and experience to offer to the local community to help bring up the community. These are men and women who are coming readily trained. As I said, yes, we only stay three or four years, but we do stay three or four years. The previous employee who got the job when Joyce was rejected at the medical laboratory stayed three months.

We have an attitude problem, and I think that attitude problem needs to be addressed. I hope the place to start would be my concern with respect to abandonment from the government and an issue that I heard spoken to earlier that we need support down from the government. I think we can get support up if we can establish an appointed individual in the local employment office whose job is there to look out for these people who are coming and going. If they can get out there and beat the bushes and say they have a really qualified person coming here, here's another résumé, here's a really good person that's coming again, I think we can do something. I really think so.

• 2040

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It's sure worth a try.

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

David Pratt.

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

One of the things that we've tried to do during the course of this committee's work, I think, is not to just talk about the problems; we have tried to address some of the solutions in terms of tossing around some ideas.

Let me toss an idea in front of you, Major, in terms of the whole issue of spousal employment. What would you think if the government put together some sort of a program that would provide for certain breaks for employers—private sector employers or other public institutions—that are prepared to hire military spouses, breaks in terms of payroll deductions, let's say, like giving an employer a break on employment insurance deductions or CPP contributions? Do you see that as helpful?

Maj George Sherwood: For me and for my family, the employment of my spouse is a question of respect. It's her self-respect and her self-esteem that's in question here, and what you're talking about is affirmative action. What I think about affirmative action is that it's welfare, and I don't want welfare. What I want is respect. What I want from the military and from the Canadian public is respect. What I want from the local community is respect.

I don't want somebody to say “Oh, she got the job because the government is paying half her salary.” I appreciate where you're coming from and I thank you, but I know that our spouses can stand on their own feet and I would rather see them get their jobs that way. And I think that self-respect would be there...but maybe everybody wouldn't agree with me.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mr. David Pratt: I think the point of it—and I haven't discussed this with my colleagues, it's just something off the top of my head—would be to recognize that the military spouses are put at a disadvantage in the workforce—

Maj George Sherwood: Yes.

Mr. David Pratt: —because of the length of various postings. And we have done this in other areas, especially for youth. The government has put together a new hires program where that's been the case in terms of employment insurance deductions. That's essentially where I'm coming from.

But I can understand and appreciate your comments, and we're going to have to discuss it more, obviously. Thank you.

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

Major, I just have one quick question. It deals with your remarks on abandonment. As Mr. Pratt has said, we've kicked around a number of issues. One of the things we're kicking around is a “social contract”. Are you talking about a social contract?

The government knows what it expects from the military. It expects the military to defend Canada at all costs, and if it means the loss of lives—let's hope it never gets that way, but it does sometimes—that's part of the contract that the government knows it gets from the military. Are you suggesting or saying that maybe it's just the reverse, that maybe the military should expect something from the government in return for their commitment to us or to Canada? Was that what you were saying?

Maj George Sherwood: I think, sir, if I may, I can respond by saying that you've made the statement that the government knows what it wants from the military, but I have to respond, sir, by saying that we don't know what you think you know you want from us.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's fair. That's exactly it.

Maj George Sherwood: I get the feeling that the government would be real happy if it had a peace corps, not a Canadian military.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): No. I'm just thinking about guaranteed pay raises, that—

Maj George Sherwood: The whole issue of job security is what I'm addressing when I'm saying we don't know what you want.

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

• 2045

Maj George Sherwood: When we talk about alternate service delivery and we look around the room here.... I'm the wing logistics officer on this base, so a considerable number of the support trades work for me. When you look at the people who go to Bosnia, and various other UN tours, the support trades on this base are the people wearing all the medals. It's not the fighter pilots. It's not the guys you're offering the $25,000 bonuses to.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Maj George Sherwood: I have corporal, master corporal, sergeant EGS techs, carpenters, plumbers, and electricians with three and four and five medals. There's a master corporal with six. That's a lot of his life. That's a lot of his family's life.

When you take a man with twelve years in the service and send him away for six six-month tours, which are now eight months, when you throw in the training they have to do at some other base, and then you put him through training, that individual has done about three years of training in his 12 or 14 years of service. He's not spending an awful lot of time at home. The stress on his family...and then you take and post him around, and his wife can't get a job.

We heard earlier about support from the community. Community support just isn't there. That wife doesn't have a job, and she doesn't have a community to fall back on. We're closing or tearing down our church. We're saying, well, maybe we can ASD out the medical guys, and maybe we can ASD out the padres: they could always go to the church downtown. Social worker? Well, we had to contract him. He comes in three days a week.

I'm sorry, but if we can't provide the community here, the community isn't out there either. There's no place to fall back.

When that member is gone, and gone, and gone, and now we're saying “Gee, really great; we're really sorry that you did all those great tours but we're going to cut your job, because a contractor can do that”, well, I'm sorry, a contractor can't do that. A contractor can drive a nail for me, but a contractor can't do for me what a military carpenter does for me. It's not the same job.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thanks very much, Major; I appreciate it very much.

Let's take a ten-minute break, have a coffee, and get a little exercise.

• 2048

• 2109

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I believe we are set to go with the second half of our program.

Somebody mentioned that they had some problems coming before this committee. As you're probably aware, messages were sent out to all the bases, asking members to be honest and open in front of the committee. I know Colonel Hussey has done a great job of publicizing this and also making sure that people do get out in front of this committee and speak their minds.

• 2110

We appreciate Colonel Hussey's support. This comes also from the Chief of Defence Staff, who personally is endorsing this process and urging members and their families to come forward.

With that in mind, we would like to call our next witness, Mireille Hébert.

[Translation]

Ms. Mireille Hébert (Individual Presentation): Good evening. My name is Mireille Hébert. I am here to talk to you about a specific situation involving my son. It is about Bill 101. He would like to go to an English school in Québec, but he is denied this. We are told that he must go to a French school, and in addition, he must fall one year behind.

When my husband, who was a member of the Canadien Armed Forces, was transferred to Nova Scotia, a career officer told him there would be no problems if we ever returned to Québec. He was assured that if he was transferred, we would be protected, and our child would be able to go to an English school. But this is not the case.

Because my husband will be retiring, we will no longer be protected. Nobody can help us, and I find that regrettable. My son does not want to go to a French school but rather wishes to continue to go to an English school. We have to tell him: "You have no choice, Marc. You must go to a French school because they want you to." Personally, I find that regrettable.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I have the impression your comments may be addressed to me.

Québec laws apply to the people who live in Québec. Bill 101 says that Francophone parents must send their children to French schools, and that is why the law applies. I do not see what more I could say, and I also cannot see how an exception could be made in your case. I imagine his classes were in English in the past, were they not?

Ms. Mireille Hébert: He is currently attending an English school.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: His classes have always been in English, and that is why he would like to continue in English. Unfortunately, the law in Québec is not like that. I must also tell you that, when they move to another province, Quebeckers are also faced with laws they do not like. In my opinion, when we move to another province, we must abide by the laws of that province.

We have also heard about other restrictions, including the fact that you must change your licence plates and driver's licence when you move to another province. Here again, this is a provincial law that applies to all people living in the province. That is how it is, and everybody must submit to the laws.

Ms. Mireille Hébert: Yes, but when we were transferred to Nova Scotia and my children were forced to go to an English school, the career officer told us that there would be no problems when we would return to Québec and that the children would be able to continue attending an English school or return to a French school. Because my husband is retiring, the situation is different. I find it regrettable and unacceptable that the Forces have cornered us like this. It is incredible.

I understand that when we go to another province, we must submit to that province's laws and get new licence plates or other things. But this is about the education of my 16-year-old child, who himself is asking to go to an English school and study in the language of his choice. I do not understand that the Forces could put us in such a situation. Anyway, I am overwhelmed.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: There is nothing more I can tell you. As I said, the law must be applied in Québec. Have the Armed Forces misled you? I have the impression that is what you are telling me. You were led to believe things, and you realize they were not true.

Would it be appropriate to speak to those who promised you these things, or simply go public and say that it is not true, that things do not happen that way, so other members of the Armed Forces will be aware of the situation?

Ms. Mireille Hébert: Exactly. Why is it that the current agreement between the Armed Forces and the province of Québec regarding transfers does not apply to the families of members who retire? If this issue were resolved, parents and their children would not have to face this problem in the future.

• 2115

The current agreement between the Armed Forces and the Québec government states that the children of members who are transferred to Québec can go to a school of their choice. Why is it not the same for a member who retires? It should be the same, because we are the same families. We do not change, and we have the same problems. Thank you.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Thank you.

[English]

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

Next is Helen Smith.

Ms. Helen Smith (Individual Presentation): I'd like to start by thanking the committee for the opportunity to speak. I've been married to a reservist for 25 years, and it's the first time in 25 years the army has encouraged me to speak. Often they're trying to shut me up, I think.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Helen Smith: So it was a surprise and a shock when the major came to me a week ago Friday and said they would like me to appear here.

I should have known when my husband insisted on getting married in uniform that the military was going to be the third but equally important partner in our marriage. Some of the issues I wish to address tonight are different from what you people who have lived on bases in the reg force deal with, but they're equally important.

Ten years ago my husband had the opportunity to become a full-time reservist. I was very hesitant. It meant we had no more pension plan and the benefits for the children and me were now gone. But, as in any decision, we sat down and talked, and we entered into it with a lot of thought, a lot of concern, and a lot of commitment. For the past ten years the Canadian Armed Forces has been our primary bread-giver, hopefully. That's where the main issue of contention comes in.

I don't understand how an organization such as the Canadian Armed Forces, which prides itself on being able to mobilize hundreds, even thousands, of people at a moment's notice, can't manage to pay its reservists in a timely fashion.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Ms. Helen Smith: I can't begin to count the number of times the 15th-of-the-month cheque has arrived after the 30th. In fact my bank manager jokingly, or maybe not jokingly—I'll talk to the lady over there and find out—suggested that maybe we should quit pre-authorized payment plans, because you don't know when the cheque's coming in.

It isn't a joke when you're trying to feed and clothe two growing boys and put a roof over their heads. Based on what the armed forces pays my husband, we just can't do it. So I work, and I work joyfully, because I enjoy being with people. But that doesn't make it right. He entered into a commitment with the armed forces that he would provide services for them, and on the 15th and the 30th of the month, they would provide remuneration for those services. It doesn't happen very often.

He spent three weeks in Winchester and in Vankleek Hill, and he greatly enjoyed the time he had there. He was able to help. He was able to use the skills that the armed forces had trained him to provide. He came home fully expecting to be paid.

Well, the first story was the clerk who was to input the money went on leave and they didn't replace her. I work as an office manager, and let me tell you, if I let my payroll clerk go and didn't replace her during the time the money was to be issued to the employees, I wouldn't be working.

The next story was, I believe, there was a computer glitch. And then I believe it was, well, LFCA didn't know where the money was coming from. Eventually, after a lot of begging and borrowing from parents and other people to get through the time when the money wasn't there, the money did arrive. But it's not right.

There are two different pay systems in the forces, as I understand it. I don't think the reg force has gone through this; I may be wrong. I'm wondering why we can't use their system. I understand it's a different rate of pay, but computers are for our use. Shouldn't we be able to find a way to pay our people in a timely fashion?

• 2120

The second issue I really wish to address is that although my husband is employed by the Canadian Armed Forces, we are a family unit. He's tasked out most summers for three, four, and even five months, and I'm left at home with two boys. I don't like it, but it's something you get used to. It's something we agreed to when he made this commitment. I just wish there was some sort of support network there for me. There is a rumour that there is a support network there for reservists' families. But if there is, it's one of the best-kept military secrets of all times.

In Sault Ste. Marie we have regular force personnel who are posted in. They're wonderful people who do just an amazing job. But I feel very sorry for these people too, because they've often come from base life with base support systems for them, and their families are now put into a city that has no support system for these people. They have wives who are looking for jobs, and I understand exactly what you were saying: there's a little black mark beside your name if you're going to be posted out in three years.

They have no camaraderie there. We try in our own mess to provide that, but it's not always the same thing. So while we're two very different systems trying to work together, there are differences. Just as there are inequalities for the reservists and their families, there are inequalities for the regular force people being posted to non-base areas.

I began by saying that my husband and I went into this commitment with thought, with concern, and with commitment. I think all we're asking from the Canadian Armed Forces is that they give us that same thought, concern, and commitment in return.

Thank you for this opportunity.

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

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'd like to ask you a question about the pay for reservists. I had heard there had been tremendous improvements in the pay system for reservists.

Ms. Helen Smith: Can I give you my bank manager's phone number?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you noticed any improvement over the last few years?

Ms. Helen Smith: There has been, but my husband switched units at the end of October and he went into a black hole. He still works, but somehow that computer black hole didn't pay him. So we went all November without a cheque, and then all January again because he was working for the ice storm.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thanks.

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

Mr. George Proud: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I'm really astounded by this, because we went all through this in 1994 with the people and we were assured that this would be taken care of. I heard this earlier today, about this tragedy where people came back after working on the ice storm and didn't get paid. That's a terrible thing for the government and the military and everybody else. They have to be ashamed of themselves. I certainly know this committee is going to be looking into that.

If they can do it in the regular forces, they can do it in the reserve forces. This has to be fixed.

Thank you.

Ms. Helen Smith: Thank you for listening.

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

Next is Carole Moody.

Ms. Carole Moody (Individual Presentation): I'm a military spouse, a mother of four children, and a practising registered nurse—a casual one, that is, because I too move around.

I'm very concerned with the inadequate health care offered to members of the regular force. As a member of our Canadian society, when I'm ill I pick up the phone and I make an appointment to see my family physician. He holds that title and has the privilege of caring for my family in times of need because we have chosen him. The operative word is “choice”.

• 2125

The same cannot be said for members of the regular force. Their physicians are chosen for them, and because these physicians are employed by the military, the nature of the patient-physician relationship is altered. As a member of the regular force, when he sees the military or civilian-appointed physician, he sits across the desk from a potential medical review board. He has no right to confidentiality because the military's need to know now precedes his rights as a Canadian citizen. That now makes him a member of the Canadian military and a second-class citizen.

For this special standing in society, he must be a member of the regular force, however. As members of the reserves they take up weapons with you and serve our country in troubled areas, but when they're not well they call and make an appointment with their family physician—because they can.

Because of fear of possible career implications they cannot tell you what they are really suffering with, so really, they are left with no health care. And how ironic, because they do suffer and they do need help. My husband needed help and had no choice any more but to seek it. He will be unemployed as of July 31, 1998.

My family feels cheated in many ways. I've been giving up permanent employment for the last 16 years because I am a member of that so-called military team. In this economy I am now a casual part of the casual workforce, and my husband, at the age of 41, is going to be disposed of, leaving us with very little income.

In these times of economic turmoil, I ask you to make the Canadian government responsible. How can this inadequate system of delivery and this gross duplication of services that are available in our communities be tolerated?

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Carole, could I just get you to come back to the mike? I think there are a few questions from some of my colleagues.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to make sure I understand what you're saying. You're saying that people in the military are often concerned about going to see the doctor because it's a military doctor and they're afraid that if the doctor finds something wrong with them that could be used against them, really, and in fact they could lose their jobs because they could then be deemed not healthy enough to work.

Ms. Carole Moody: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Is that what happened with your husband?

Ms. Carole Moody: Absolutely.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you heard about other situations like that?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Carole Moody: I don't have enough fingers on my hands to count the people in this room tonight who I know that to be perfectly true for. Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: To me it's just hard to understand that, because that shows a complete lack of commitment to people who have served.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It could do nothing, but I don't understand how morale can be as good as it is in the military with that kind of thing going on.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Ms. Carole Moody: What morale is that, sir?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, well, if this is.... And I've heard this at other places too. You're not the first person to express this. I've talked to other people who have expressed the same kinds of concerns. But I still found that when I heard you tell of your personal situation...it's just unbelievable, quite frankly.

Ms. Carole Moody: Sentiment aside, I'd like to know what the committee's going to do about it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, well.... I'm confident that a recommendation will come forth from the committee to deal with that.

• 2130

Ms. Carole Moody: I don't mean this to be a personal attack on physicians who are employed by the military. They are compelled by their employment to fit military members within a little box. So if you work within a certain trade, you have to be able to stand or sit for eight hours. There is a list, and each trade has that list. So it's not meant to be that kind of an attack at all.

However, as a registered nurse, when I go see my physician he makes no contact with my employer. And I can guarantee you that the police officers downtown aren't subjected to that kind of thing either.

Physicians are compelled by law to report certain things. If I suffer from dizziness and I am a danger to you when I'm behind the wheel, my physician is compelled to report that to the Ministry of Transport and my licence will be revoked. If I am suspected to be mentally ill and I pose a danger to myself or to others, my physician is again compelled to issue a form and subject me to 72 hours of assessment.

Those are things I understand. But these are not the things our military members are being subjected to.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What it's doing, it seems to me, is that it's really causing military people to be denied proper medical attention because they just don't dare go until they can't stand not to.

I just have one last question for you. I've had some people suggest that this process is being used to get rid of people at a time when downsizing is in the cards.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's pretty clear from the response that you feel this is something that is being done.

Ms. Carole Moody: It certainly feels that way from my perspective.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I have nothing else to ask. I just find it difficult to believe this is going on as much as it is.

Ms. Carole Moody: It is. Thank you.

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

I have a question, Ms. Moody. We heard this morning about how people are afraid to go to the doctor if there's something wrong. I guess Mr. Benoit strikes on a good chord when he says it's a scary situation. But it becomes a catch-22 situation, doesn't it, because if you don't go to the doctor and you stay in and five years down the road something happens and you're looking for a military discharge or whatever the case may be, they're going to say it never happened and ask why you didn't come in before.

Ms. Carole Moody: That's correct.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): So you're really caught, aren't you?

Ms. Carole Moody: Absolutely. And not only that, but people who are experiencing medical problems live with the added stress of having to hide what that medical problem may be, because God forbid that you may not pass that yearly medical. So it's a problem that really just adds—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Manifests all the time.

Ms. Carole Moody: Absolutely, yes.

Mr. David Pratt: In terms of the rules that surround that particular relationship between the military doctor and soldier or airman, would a service person be subject to disciplinary action if they went to another doctor outside of...?

Ms. Carole Moody: We don't have medical coverage. Our husbands do not have OHIP, so they cannot. I'm sure you've heard Mr. Harris say show up for your picture or you don't get health care. Well, our husbands don't have that picture. They do not have provincial medical coverage.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, it might be worth while for our researchers to look into how many medical releases there have been over the last number of years. I'm trying to gather some statistics on this issue.

A voice:

[Inaudible—Editor].

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): The trades and the number of people. Okay, we'll do that. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Ms. Moody.

Ms. Carole Moody: If I can just add one more thing—

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

Ms. Carole Moody: —for Mrs. Venne, I'm really disappointed at the response you offered Madame Hébert. How dare you suggest that our children's education is equivalent to a plate on a car? I just don't know where that comment is coming from. If that child....

• 2135

[Translation]

You did not understand. I will tell you in French. I cannot believe that you dare say that the education of our children can be compared to a licence plate on the back of a car, Madam. I really cannot believe it. Is that the Québec attitude? What is it? If our children have been educated in English for years, what gives Québec the right to tell them all of a sudden that, because their parents are Francophones, they must go to a French school even though they do not speak French? Please, Madam! Does that make sense?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Ms. Venne.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I think I need to answer, Mr. Chairman. I was comparing laws, Madam. That is what I was doing.

Ms. Carole Moody: We are talking about people, Madam, not laws.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I am comparing the laws that apply in different provinces.

Ms. Carole Moody: Laws apply to people, not boxes. These are people who have special lifestyles, specially when members of the Armed Forces are asked to travel from one end of the country to the other.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Quite so. Absolutely.

[English]

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

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next is Paul Murphy.

Corporal Paul Murphy (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

This is something that's along the pay and benefits side and also morale. I've got two issues here tonight.

Recently I've just gone through another trade change in the military. When I joined the military I wanted to be a physical education instructor, and in order to be that you had to spend three to five years in another trade—understandably, because you were going to lead other military people through training. No problem. So you're in the line to go into the other trade, but if you want to get promotions and what not, everything's put on the back burner because you're no longer suitable for promotion. No problem.

After five years I became a physical education instructor in the Canadian military. Within 12 years of that trade, which was ended in April 1997.... The reason we had to change trades was not on our own choice; it was compulsory because we went to alternate service delivery. We now have PSP personnel doing the job. I don't have a real problem with the personnel doing the job. I do have a problem, perhaps, that we went to ASD and we Americanized it. That's the way the Americans went. We did give away a lot of the trade. That might be shame on us in certain areas.

However, I'm now an AC-OP, or an aerospace controller operator, and my unvested right to my pay is my big issue right here. I left master corporal rank; that's not a really high rank, but I'm down to a corporal now. So I'm out of the promotion chain probably four to six years minimum, and the reason is it takes that long for you to get back up into the chain. However, in saying that, promotions have been pretty much at a standstill in most trades in the Canadian Armed Forces. Someone addressed that issue earlier, so I won't carry on with that.

After 17 years, I'm starting over again. I've just signed an IPS. That's right on. I'm really proud to serve the Canadian Armed Forces and I'm glad that I was offered a chance to carry on. However, what's happened is there's a QR&O out there—it's QR&O 204-30, and it's paragraph five that states on the compulsory remuster that.... Let me just read this. I do have a vested right to pay of my last pay itself until that rate of pay for the present rank or my pay level or incentive pay category becomes greater.

Well, that's going to be pretty hard for me to get higher pay over the next six years, eight years, whatever. Yet I've invested my family to.... Well, I've got 17 years in, so the least I have to spend now is another eight years in the military or I pay penalties because of the IPS and what not. So now what happens is my rate of pay is going to stay vested at that master corporal rate. I didn't have a problem with that when I remustered. There was one thing that I didn't realize, though, and that was that I am not entitled to any cost-of-living increases.

• 2140

So now I'm a loyal member of the Canadian Armed Forces, and I don't get any kind of increase like the cost of living. Yet fuel is going to go up, housing is going to go up, food and entertainment.... We need that side of it; the family needs that side of it also.

When I took the remuster and then everybody got that pay raise in April, I didn't even realize I didn't get it at that state. I say I didn't realize it only because we were going through a time of turmoil.

Anyway, in October, when the next pay raise came out and I went to the pay office and asked them why I didn't get it, they said no, your pay is frozen. So then I looked up all the QR&Os and did a lot of homework and what not.

I still don't think it's right. However, I did make some phone calls to other bases, to other former PERI members who were master corporal and above. Some of them got the pay raise and some of them didn't, so obviously it's not being applied straight across the board. For the ones who got the pay raise, was it right or was it wrong? I do know of individuals who are redressing certain scenarios with this here.

Within the military, in 1992-93 or somewhere in that area, we had a pay freeze. I agreed with that along with everybody else because I had no choice in that matter. So I haven't had a pay raise since 1992 or whenever that freeze went on, except when I got promoted to master corporal. That, by the way, wasn't a real huge jump in my pay either.

Also, my wife is a lab technician by trade, and she has followed me through my career. She gave up her career because they didn't really want somebody who was going base to base like that. She was very highly qualified, by the way, coming out of Halifax. She was overqualified for a lot of the jobs when she went to these places, or it was sorry, but you know, you're only here three or four years.

The other thing is, somebody else had mentioned earlier about getting a paid résumé, something that just came out. We read it in The Shield. Is that the newspaper here? I've been to so many bases.... It said something like spouses can get a paid résumé, up to $500 for that, providing they worked at their last base. So again, yes, that's a step in the right direction, but my wife is not entitled to a paid résumé. Again, that's another knock against my family—no pay raises in the last five or six years, and no more pay raises to look forward to in the next seven or eight years.

Some people here know me, and I'm really trying to be brief tonight.

Something I'd like to address also is that this QR&O 204-30, paragraph 5, has been dated April 1, 1982. I have a current copy of this, and the last time it was updated was 1982. I joined the military in 1981, and the military was growing. There were probably about 75,000 to 80,000 people at that time. Now we're down to 50,000 to 65,000 people or so. I don't know the number exactly, but we've downsized.

We've gone through pay freezes, and I don't think that QR&O reflects the changes of today. It says “for compulsory remuster”. At that time, they weren't cutting trades out of the military and saying we're going to ASD and we're going to put you in other trades. So I really think the PERIs of that—not just PERIs but any other trade that's out there—for myself and the nine or ten personnel I've talked to, we're all being affected drastically by this, with all the pay freezes and for cost of living, and our families are really going to suffer big time over this.

That was something we didn't realize when we said okay, we'll take the remuster and stay in the military and serve and use our expertise to carry on. We didn't realize we weren't going to get the cost-of-living increases, and we're being told we're not entitled to it.

That's one issue, but I'll take anything if you guys want to throw something at me—I play a lot of sports.

• 2145

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are you finished your presentation? I know there are some questions.

Corporal Paul Murphy: Good. I have one other quick thing here. I say it's quick.

As mentioned earlier, though, morale is lower in the military than it's probably ever been. There have been a few things, such as quality of life programs, that are starting to help out here. So there have been some positives, and committees like yours have been worth while, to some degree. So keep up the good work on that side.

However, there are some things that are now.... As a former PERI and now being out of that trade, I'm concerned that there are lots of budget cutbacks. As for this base, what I've been told is that the budget for next year is to run the rock. I've worked on the rock; hey, right on, my job's still secure. But it's the morale side that I'm worried about.

The crew, the people I work with.... First of all, playing sports is starting to disappear. I went to the regionals, and one base, Petawawa, wasn't even at the regionals. They haven't attended any because they're so tasked out and what not that the people behind have to stay and work the jobs there. They're not allowed to be let out to go play sports and represent their base. Well, that's happening here to a point where the funding is not there. That's what we're told, that the funding's not going to be what we're used to next year and we're going to have to dig deeper in our pockets. As I say, I have pretty shallow pockets with no pay raises.

The other area is the intersection sport level. The base level is supposed to be your top-notch players, but the intersection level is the most important area that we spend our money on, as far as our budgets for sports go. I'm really concerned that there's not going to be very much money there for our intersection sport personnel to go out and play, and if that's not there, morale is going to be lower.

So I'm hoping that what I heard, that the budget's all going down there.... If that's the case—and I know we need that budget to work the rock—I just hope Ottawa sees fit not to cut the sport budget out there, because it's a huge factor for morale.

I'm finished now. Thanks.

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

I just don't understand, Paul, how come you don't have any cost-of-living increase. I was under the impression that it was across the board and it was automatic. Why didn't you get a cost of living increase, to your knowledge? Have you got anything to redress it or anything like that?

Corporal Paul Murphy: Actually, I've gone to the pay office and I've talked to other people who have gone to their pay office, and they always say.... And no offence to the pay office personnel; they're going by what they know. But QR&O 204-30 states that your pay is frozen until your pay of the rank you're at right now exceeds what your last one was. I always thought the cost of living, though, was something on the extra side, but now we're finding out it's not. I tell you, it's a real shock. It's a huge shock.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, I thought it was, too. But it's because you remustered, is that it?

Corporal Paul Murphy: It was a compulsory remuster. We didn't remuster by choice. So there are two paragraphs, paragraph 5 and paragraph 6. One is a compulsory remuster; you're told that you will remuster for whatever reason—some reasons are medical, some are because a trade has closed, for instance. Others are...you volunteer remuster. Well, when you volunteer remuster, then you accept everything that goes along with it, such as losing your rank, and I believe you even lose your pay. You go back down to the corporal rank. I'm not 100% sure on that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any other questions of Mr. Murphy?

Thank you.

Corporal Paul Murphy: Thanks very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next we'd like to call on Karen Stewart.

Ms. Karen Stewart (Individual Presentation): I just wanted to bring up a few more comments to go along with what Major Sherwood said about spouses not getting a fair share of employment or having to suffer due to moves.

It's kind of funny. We're neighbours; we don't have the same brainwaves, but I guess we are thinking along the same lines tonight.

As for job discrimination, I'm finding—and it's not been just in North Bay that we're having this problem—that when you move again, as soon as you put your address on your resumé and they figure out you're military, a door is closed, and in more ways than one. I have had two employers say to me “Unless you can guarantee that you're going to be here for two years, I can't offer you this job”.

• 2150

I have talked to other people within the company and they have never been asked that when they've been offered either a better position or a transfer. All of a sudden I'm put on a kind of second-class list, I guess. This bothers me. The other thing that bothers me is that as I get older and we move around I'm going to be faced with age discrimination. That seems to be something that the civilian sector is facing as well. Oh, I guess I am civilian, but I forget that every once in a while. I live under different rules.

The other thing that happens—and I know of a number of spouses who have gone through this—is that once we get a good position we don't want to leave that position. When my husband was transferred to North Bay I chose to stay at my old job and created a family separation. We had to apply for permission to do this, which is kind of silly, but I understand why: they don't want the military member to be under hardship. Who cares about what his spouse is going through at that time?

I did finally choose to give up my job to come and join my spouse, due to some other reasons. But at the same time I know of people who have lived apart for four or five years simply because the spouse found good employment, was happy with a job, the kids were happy with their schools, and it was more advantageous, I guess, for them as a family to remain that way.

The other thing that happened to me because I happen to be a military spouse is that not only do I have to reinvent myself maybe once or twice every time I move in trying to find a new job.... I've gone through job retraining and I've been in a number of different careers, which is wonderful in that I've been exposed to a lot of things and I have a lot of job knowledge, but I don't seem to be credited for that every time I try to move into a community. What has happened to me is that I've given up trying to accrue a pension of any kind for myself.

In the teaching profession, if I'm lucky enough to find a teaching job in another province I'm only allowed to carry seven years of pensionable benefits with me to the new province, and each province differs. I'm also penalized in recertification if I want to move from one province to another province. It's lovely that I can now get some money for my résumé, but who's going to pay the $325 or the $1,000 or whatever it's going to cost me to be recertified to actually work in this province? Nobody covers that. Nobody covers the courses I have to take for retraining, should I need to. Some provinces, like B.C., for example, say that if you want to become a teacher you must go back to university and take these five courses, and that comes out of my pocket as well.

Again, I am also starting out at maybe a different salary level. Instead of being able to accrue my salary like normal people would get salary raises, I have to start all over again, and I'm not given much in the way of recognition for any time I've put in before.

I also have to worry about child care. If I want to be a casual worker and get called in on a part-time basis, a lot of child care places will not take my child on a part-time basis. I pay for the spot full-time, whether my child uses it or not. That puts a financial burden on me. If I have two children and my child care is costing me $1,000 a month and I'm not making $1,000 a month, why should I work?

Voices: Hear, hear.

Ms. Karen Stewart: UI programs are great. I've been to the UI centre here. I am fortunate enough to have talked to some good counsellors at this centre and they told me about wonderful programs that are being run in North Bay. These programs are not consistent across Canada. It's kind of on a...it's not a first-come, first-served basis, for some of them, it's kind of whatever each service centre decides is important.

The one in North Bay has decided that there's a kind of a job-finding workshop. The only thing is that you must have been on unemployment insurance or maternity leave in the last three years, and some spouses in the military can't qualify for that. You also notice this when you go to the unemployment centre and you want to qualify for any of the retraining programs or for some of the incentives they're offering. They say you must be eligible for UI benefits.

Again, that hits some of the spouses that way too, because we aren't eligible for UI benefits, especially if our spouse has been out of country or overseas. I can be working out of country or overseas and come back and no longer be eligible if the postings are longer than the two years, I think, that UI recognizes.

• 2155

What else? I guess one thing is that you are looking for solutions and you are asking what some of the things are that you can do on base. The family resource centre, I think, as part of its mandate, helps people put together résumés and do job searches. That's nice—if the family resource centre has the funding to fund those programs. Often they don't. They have to look at what they are being given for money, decide on what that the base needs more and then schedule their programming that way. And if there are more people crying out for counselling services, then maybe the funding goes to counselling instead, so then the unemployment program gets shifted off by the wayside. They're also a great place to go for child care, but again, if the child care funding isn't there at the drop-ins, we're not getting that service either.

Maybe there's something else that could be looked at. You were talking about giving employers a break in paying CPP or unemployment premiums. What about giving a tax break to those of us who stay at home, whether it is by choice or not? If I go to work, I get almost $7,000, I think, in child tax benefits. If I stay at home, whether I choose to because I want to or not, I don't get any of that. I think there are a lot of parents—not just women, but men also—who are staying at home simply because they don't want to go through this rat race every time they are posted. It's very humiliating to go through ten interviews or four jobs simply because you've chosen to marry somebody in the military.

I also wanted to point out that when we are talking about being part of a community and using community services and we are talking here about the people being posted out or needing counselling services because their families are not handling or coping with moves or separations, etc.... I believe that the on-base crisis counsellor at the family resource centre in Gagetown, where we were before we came here—I'm just new to this base—was only allowed to see us five times. After the fifth session, they had to terminate the counselling relationship and then refer you to a civilian counselling agency, or you could choose to go to a base social worker if that's who you were comfortable with.

Often it takes more than four or five sessions to get comfortable or even get close to what is going on in a situation before you can start working on it or solving it. If you choose to go to a civilian counsellor, you are looking at paying $80 to $140 an hour for counselling services. Tell me how many people can afford that with what you've been hearing about how much we've been paid. Not very many.

So they're kind of leaving us high and dry. And I'm not saying that everybody in the forces needs counselling, but—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Ms. Karen Stewart: —if you look at how much we're being paid and the things we're doing, you kind of wonder about it!

So there's another inequity. We keep talking about needing to support our families and our members but it just doesn't seem like we know how to go about it, or the infrastructure just isn't there.

Anyway, I'm sorry. I'm really nervous about this. I might even give birth, so ask questions quickly!

Voices: Oh, oh.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I was attentive before, but I really am now.

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Karen. I believe we do have some questions.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. I'd like to ask you a question first and then make a comment. You've talked, as have some others, about an apparent discrimination against spouses of military personnel when it comes to getting jobs in the new community that you are moving to. Do you believe the reason for that is that the employers genuinely feel you're not going to be around as long as some others who have applied for the job might be, or is it something else?

• 2200

Ms. Karen Stewart: I went for an interview with one employer and I went back a subsequent number of times. The employer said he was going to invest so much time and money in training me that for me to leave in two years might not be worth it for him. I argued that I had the experience and I came from different places.

I can understand that employer's ideals. A number of other employers have the attitude that we're not reliable, that we're in it for the short haul so we take what we can. They don't see us as contributing very much. Why bother with us? We're here; we're performing a service, but we're expendable. They don't seem to have formed that attachment or loyalty to us that they give to other employees. That's my personal sentiment. I can't speak for everybody else.

Mr. Leon Benoit: My comment is on your question when you asked why it is that people who take their children to a day care centre and hire someone else to look after them get a tax break and yet those who choose to have one parent stay at home with the children don't get the equivalent tax break. That is an excellent question. It's a question I've been asking and the Reform Party has been asking for some time.

In this latest budget there was an increase in the child care deduction. So if you take your children to a day care centre and have someone else look after them, there's an increased tax break. If you choose to hire part of your family to look after your children, or choose to look after them yourself, you don't get the equivalent tax break, and you absolutely should. There's no reason why you shouldn't get the same tax break.

Ms. Karen Stewart: You also don't get the right to contribute to a pension for yourself either. When the income tax people send you back that little statement and they tell you how much you're allowed to contribute, as someone who stays at home, that's almost a negligible amount. So you're penalized that way as well.

Mr. Leon Benoit: To contribute into the Canada Pension Plan, you are saying?

Ms. Karen Stewart: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That has actually been brought up more than once. People who stay home with the children should be allowed to do that. I don't know whether it can be accommodated or not, but clearly the tax treatment is unfair. Another thing that makes it unfair is that the basic personal exemption is different from the spousal exemption. That also discriminates against the family, where one or the other spouse chooses to stay at home with the children.

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

Mr. George Proud: Thank you very much for your presentation. I'll try not to hold you up too long.

You mentioned earlier that you were scared of age discrimination. I know what that's all about.

Seriously, you talked about the discrimination against people like yourself with regard to working and getting jobs in the community. Mr. Pratt made a suggestion to make some changes and to give some incentives. I don't know how you fix that. We say that the government hasn't shown a commitment to the military. We say that not enough people in the House of Commons have shown enough commitment to the military, and I agree. If the community doesn't show enough commitment or doesn't want to hire the spouses of military people, I'm wondering how you go about changing that. I don't know, honestly.

When I started out on the defence review some years ago we talked about the reservists. Some of us thought that perhaps a good idea would be to have compulsory time off to serve. That didn't fly; nobody wanted to see that happen. You can't legislate that. It's hard for us as a committee to know what kind of recommendation to make on it. I don't know what we can do. Certainly we haven't done a good enough PR job selling the necessity of the military to the public. I will agree with you there. Whether that fixes this situation is really my question to you.

• 2205

Ms. Karen Stewart: I'm not sure. There is one employment program in North Bay that sounds promising. When you go to talk to these people, they talk about the great placement rate they have. If something like that were available in every community....

They bring you in and you re-do your résumé. They have contacts in the community, they know what the job markets are in the community, and they help you make contacts with those people in the community to try to give you kind of a leg up in the job-finding area. They teach you how to market yourself and where to look for a job, not just in the paper and not just at the employment centre. There are two to three people working with ten of you in a room, helping you to get closer to your goal or your ambition.

If there were programs like that more readily available, and available to those of us in the military.... As I say, there's also that cut-off that says if you are not eligible for UI benefits, you can't use our program. For a lot of us, if we come from out of country because our husbands were posted out of country, or if you're like me and for two years you couldn't find a job in North Bay and you get posted someplace else, we've lost our eligibility; we can't benefit from these programs any more. Maybe if you could lift that restriction for some of us—

Mr. George Proud: If I might just interject, that's not confined to the military. That's a problem we had with the administration of the EI program. We tried to get that changed. You can't get a training program unless you're eligible for EI. This is a big argument. You have the pro and the con to it. As I say, that's everybody; everybody's included in that.

I know it's a problem. It was mentioned here earlier this evening that probably a proactive placement office within each military community would be a step in the right direction.

But I go back to my original question. You mentioned that somebody else mentioned that somebody else mentioned that they don't ask other people the same questions as they ask you when you go to get a job in the bank: How long are you going to be here, and can you guarantee this? That's the problem I'm having a struggle with. How do we overcome that problem? As a committee, what do we recommend on that?

Ms. Karen Stewart: Use a post office box number, I guess.

Mr. George Proud: Change the number; I don't know.

Ms. Karen Stewart: We all live at this one secret address over on certain streets.

I don't know, even put in an education program and target employers, saying exactly what George has said earlier: Look at what I bring with me; I am trained and overtrained. I don't know how you go about getting around those biases. I don't want the welfare situation like that.

I also am very cautious about alienating the regular community that's here. I don't want to come in and look like I'm a job-stealer. That worries me, because then that just builds up more walls within the community.

Mr. George Proud: But certainly it's one of the challenges we'll have as a committee, to try to make recommendations on what can be done to sell it, on an educational basis or whatever, to communities that this is something they should look at seriously because you are already trained. They don't have to train somebody for a nurse or a banker manager or personnel or whatever it may be. I don't know what to say.

Ms. Karen Stewart: I'd also like to extend that kind of program to the people who go on FRP or who are being forced out of the military, because I know a number of those people also face a lot of brick walls when they're trying to find employment after a career of service to their country.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next is Major Gisèle Royer.

Major Gisèle Royer (Individual Presentation): I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of speaking today. Although I'll be touching on some of the areas that have already been touched on by others, I just want to put it in context with some of the things that I sort of hear on a day-to-day basis, with some examples of what we see in our area.

Considerable emphasis has been placed on the issue of money, and military salaries specifically. Although we all know this, and I don't think there'll be any dispute here that this is a critical issue for all of us, there are many other issues that can't be ignored. It's just the tip of the iceberg.

Most members did not join strictly for financial gain, because if they had, they would have sought employment elsewhere. The reason the financial issue seems to make it to the forefront is because most of the other benefits and reasons for people joining the military seem to have gone away, and it has pushed it to the forefront of discussion.

• 2210

Most people joined the CF for a way of life in which they could become part of the military family and they could be part of a team. They joined to have an interesting, long-term career that offered unique employment opportunities in a variety of locations. Employment in hazardous or isolated areas was offset by a number of benefits, which in the end made it all worth while.

They also joined for a sense of job satisfaction and the ability to help others who were in need, such as humanitarian relief and peacekeeping efforts. They joined to take pride in what they do for a living and to be respected and appreciated by those in the community and all other Canadians in the country instead of being disregarded, criticized, or ignored.

Constant budget cuts, manpower reductions, and overtaskings are taking a toll on the people in the military community. Manpower reductions in some areas have been as high as 50% and 60%. Workload has quadrupled over the last few years as we've incurred manpower and budgetary reductions with little change in taskings or responsibilities.

The increased workload and the uncertainty of careers is manifesting itself in the form of an unusual number of stress-related incidents, such as health problems, family problems, and increased personnel problems in the workplace. All of this is having a toll on people, as there doesn't appear to be any light at the end of the tunnel and people can't see things improving.

All of these factors have led to people who start looking at their employment as a nine to five job rather than the career they had once aspired to have, primarily as a result of a sense of futility and frustration they are currently experiencing. The overall quality of life is being affected.

We are having a hard time maintaining personnel with technical expertise because opportunities lie out there in industry and it's just too much of a choice to go for. There no longer appears a reason for them to stay because of the uncertainty that exists with their careers in the military, reductions in promotions and career advancement.

Conditions in the workplace have got to the point where people are putting in extremely long hours and barely keeping their head above water due to the manpower cuts and no change in work that has to be accomplished. The concerns are that this is only the beginning and it's going to get worse. We are past the point of doing more with less and continuing to shave the ice cube.

Just as an example for what I see on a day-to-day basis in my particular branch, the wing telecommunications branch, the functions we currently perform at this time used to be done by approximately 190 people in 1991. We've gone down to 65 positions, with no significant change in work.

Due to shortages of rank and trade levels across our branch and the reduction in cost moves, we never received our full complement last summer, despite the reductions in what we were given as our baseline manning. This gave us this year a start already in the hole.

If that wasn't bad enough, we are currently experiencing a series of unforecasted releases and retirements from personnel who have found jobs in industry as a result of many of the issues I've already discussed. We do not expect that all of these personnel will get replaced because of the reduction in moves expected for 1998. We also expect that there will likely be more releases due to personnel frustration and disillusionment.

Another issue that's been touched on, and I know it's a concern for a lot of people as a source of aggravation, is the issue of the pilot incentive program or the pilot get-well program. As stated by others, they are not the only classification or trade that is experiencing a mass exodus or a problem. There are a lot of technology-based or other career trades experiencing similar problems. I know ours is a similar case. With the way ahead in technology and information systems, it's certainly becoming a problem for us.

If we want to maintain a viable military in the future, given the strides in technology, we absolutely must invest in the training, development, and future well-being of our personnel.

Thank you.

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

Next is Captain Von Wiedner.

• 2215

Captain Achim von Wiedner (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, board members, fellow military community members, I have three items I'd like to talk about.

The first item is to address a quick point to Mr. Pratt about his government incentives. The only concern I have with that, as expressed to me by my wife, has been that spouses would only be hired for the length of that government incentive program. If it were ten weeks, they'd only be hired for ten weeks and then they would be terminated. A lot of businesses can't afford to hire people for longer periods, even with that extra little government incentive, if there is no vacancy. So I really don't have much hope in that type of a concept. I don't know what the solution is. I just say that's a problem and I don't think highly of that kind of an incentive program.

Another issue is a lack of services in urban areas. I just came from Toronto. We went through a significant downsizing in the size of the infrastructure on the base in Toronto without a reduction in the number of people. We had a full complement of a base and we lost the base proper and still maintained 800 full-time serving members in Toronto scattered throughout. There was no gymnasium, there were no messes, there were no churches, there was no social worker, there were no padres.

The view of the government, as expressed to the military, is the Treasury Board will only provide for services in those areas where you are in an isolated area or where the local community doesn't provide that kind of a service for a significant number of people. The vision is that 800 people in the community of Toronto of four million can easily be absorbed for the provision of services.

It was my job in Toronto as a personal support program officer to look at this issue. I discovered that waiting lists to see these specialists, be they medical, be they social, be they recreational, be they religious, were exceptionally long. As an example, my neighbour, who is a Roman Catholic, had to wait a minimum of one year before he even started to get into the process to get any Roman Catholic types of activities done for his children. By that time he was posted and he had to experience the problem all over again going to another urban community. I just offer that as an example of where reliance on the community is not always possible.

The last issue that I wanted to address is service with United Nations or various humanitarian organizations outside the country. Our military gladly volunteers to do these duties because that's our right and also our mandate in the Canadian Forces. We gladly represent Canada on these missions. However, we wish that the government, which is doing this for their own benefit to volunteer the Canadian Forces, would support us when we go there with the correct amount of moneys, equipment, and also moral fortitude behind it so we aren't left hanging out there when we do something. I give examples of Somalia and Bosnia, where we have gone with limited amount of equipment, limited amount of resources, and virtually no government support other than the government has said “yes, we will do that”.

I have personally done two UN tours. I've had great experiences in doing it, and I've enjoyed them immensely. I was very fortunate that although I didn't have all the financial support that I felt I should have had when I was there to acquire the correct amount of equipment and everything for our troops, I got a lot of satisfaction from doing it because I helped that country or the people I was serving. I would also say that all my compatriots and also the subordinates that worked for me felt the same way. And we were recognized in the international community for our services.

• 2220

My second UN tour was in a military observer mission, where I served with members from 14 other nations, and Canada was highly regarded, if not probably the highest, in that military community for our expertise and ability and for the country we stood for.

I just wish our government would support us when we're out there, in the same manner that we are supporting our country.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Major, maybe you could just clarify something for me. You talked about service with the UN and support with equipment and money. Were you talking about personal financial support or...?

Capt Achim von Wiedner: No, I'm talking more about the corporate funding rather than my own pay or anything.

For example, I served on the Golan Heights, where the UN, obviously cash-strapped, didn't provide for bunkers, and the little that they did, those bunkers were exceptionally poor. They were called submarine bunkers, mainly because you tried to cram 30 people into a space that you'd normally cram five people into. These bunkers probably couldn't have withstood a direct rifle round; they were that poorly constructed.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Capt Achim von Wiedner: While I was there, we started a program through the personal fortitude of some generals who cashed in every political chip they had with politicians, fellow officers, or whoever. They begged, borrowed, and stole money and spent $1 million U.S. building new bunkers. They started to build them while I was there. It was not enough, but these bunkers would be sufficient to withstand direct artillery rounds, which was required.

That was just the start. It did not by any means solve all the problems. We didn't get all the bunkers we needed; we got some of them.

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

Thank you very much.

Next is Major Daniel Migneault.

[Translation]

Maj Daniel Migneault (Individual Presentation): My name is Daniel Migneault, and I am from northern New Brunswick. I am considered as an Acadian, or what is commonly referred to as a Francophone outside Québec. This distinction is appreciated, and my comments will somewhat focus on this. What I am concerned with at the present time is that there are fewer and fewer Francophone officers in the Canadian Forces.

Before I was transferred here, in North Bay, I was the Administrative Director of the Collège militaire royal de Saint- Jean. I was there when, in the 1994 Budget, the current government announced drastic cuts in the Defence budget and the closing of various units, including the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean.

In 1952, when the Collège militaire was opened, the percentage of Francophone officers in the Armed Forces was 8%, which was far lower that the proportion of one of the two founding peoples of the country and was totally unacceptable. To correct the situation, the government decreed that establishing a military college in Francophone territory might help recruit more Francophone officers in the Armed Forces. After 42 years, a representative proportion had not yet been achieved, but it was close.

• 2225

The Collège militaire royal has been closed for three years. On my way to New Brunswick this week, as I was passing by Montréal, I was listening to a radio show whose topic was the military college, and I heard that the percentage of recruited Francophone officers was less than 40% of this year's objective.

I am not sure about the objective, but according to me, it is certainly not more that the proportion of Francophones in this country. If we estimate the proportion of Francophones in the country at roughly 25% and we take 40% of 25%, there is not much left. As a Francophone officer from outside Québec, I know I will have no choice but to work in English, which is not a problem for me.

Over the years, we learn to master the second language and we learn to live with that. However, I am very happy when I can celebrate with my Francophone neighbours and friends, renew old friendships, and enjoy life in my own culture. If nothing is done, officers who join the Canadian Forces will not have an opportunity to study and develop their culture in their own mother language. I find that regrettable.

I would like to make a few recommendations. I was not trained at a military college, but I have attended a Francophone university outside Québec. This program was offered because at that time, there were no cuts and people were being hired. The military college could not accept everybody, and some students had to attend a civil university. That is where I studied. The solution may not be to open a Francophone college again.

Maybe we ought to look at the possibility of providing Francophone officers with an opportunity to study at a Francophone university instead of a so-called bilingual military college. Everybody knows that a community like Kingston is a Canadian Loyalist bastion that is hardly appropriate for the development of French culture. That is the opinion I wanted to express this evening.

[English]

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

We'll start with questions from Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Major, if I understand well, according to your interpretation, since the Collège militaire royal de Saint- Jean has closed, the chances of having Francophone officers have dropped considerably, contrary to what we were told, which is that they would be sent to Kingston itself for their training. If I understand your interpretation, this is not enough.

Maj Daniel Migneault: The interpretation is correct. Francophones from Québec or outside Québec who wish to get a university education will think twice before choosing an Anglophone environment for their training, even if they are told that instruction is given in both official languages.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Do you know what proportion of officers graduate as you did from what is referred to as civil universities?

Maj Daniel Migneault: At the present time, there are hardly any. In that area, only certain specialized courses are not given at the Kingston Military College. Because of the cuts in the Forces at the recruitment level, the Kingston College is sufficient for training the officers who go there.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Then, could we say that there should be a major offensive in that direction?

Maj Daniel Migneault: I for one certainly hope so. I pity the young French Canadian man if, as Bernard Derome would say, the trend holds. Soon it will be like in 1952, with percentages of 7% and 8%. Here, this evening, I do not have enough fingers to count the Francophones who are present, but in 10 years, we will be looking for one another.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: I understand. Thank you.

[English]

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

Mr. Benoit, do you have any questions?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The college at Saint-Jean wasn't the only college closed down. At the same time the college from Vancouver—I forget....

Maj Daniel Migneault: Royal Roads.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. It was closed as well.

• 2230

But are you saying that fewer than 25% of the officers in the Canadian military are francophone?

Maj Daniel Migneault: Yes, I believe that fewer than 25% of the officers are francophone. I'm not saying bilingual, I'm saying francophone.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I had heard quite a different figure on that. I had heard that it's much larger than 25%.

Maj Daniel Migneault: Francophone or bilingual?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Francophone was what I was—

Maj Daniel Migneault: What are your figures?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't remember offhand, but I certainly will look that up. I just wanted to clarify that was what you said.

Maj Daniel Migneault: That's not what I said. I said

[Translation]

that the approximate proportion of Francophone Canadians is 25%. I could not tell you what the current percentage of all these Francophones is. I was saying that, considering the current reduction of approximately 40% in Francophone officer recruitment, if the trend holds, we will go back to the numbers of 1952, when there were approximately 8% of Francophone officers in the Forces.

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

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

Maj Daniel Migneault: Merci.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next I would like to call on Theresa Schopf.

Ms. Theresa Schopf (Individual Presentation): My name is Theresa Schopf and I'm a military spouse.

I'm a pharmacist by trade. I have a whole wall of licences for various provinces. Every time we go somewhere, I have to write an exam, pay more fees and get another licence. Right now my résumé probably reads like I couldn't hold down a job if my life depended on it. I don't have a base address, but all you have to do is look at my résumé and either I can't hold down a job or I'm a military spouse. I've actually been in the military and worked as a civilian in the military. I've worked in community pharmacies, community colleges, hospitals and anything else I can find when we go.

One of the biggest problems I find when we go to a new place is trying to get into the community. I find that it takes about a year to settle a family into a community. It takes that year to get your networking going and find out where the jobs are and who to go talk to. You have no history in an area. You have no family to depend on. You have no one to watch your kids if you have to run out to an interview. Sometimes you have housing and sometimes you have to buy a new house. You don't know what kind of house you can buy, because you don't know if you're going to be working. You don't know if you're going to be a single-income or dual-income family.

It's hard to settle and establish yourself into an area, but then you have to prove that yes, you are a competent person, you can do your job, and yes, you can hire me. The one time I did have a job where I had to be in a place for a year and a half—I said yes, I'm going to be there and I can develop this program—we were gone in less than a year. But they didn't mind. They knew upfront there was always that chance.

We can't promise how long we're going to be somewhere. Sometimes we don't have that year just to establish ourselves in the community. We need some help with that, and I'll get to kind of a solution later.

We also have the stigma of being military spouses, so if anybody has had a bad connection to the military, has read some of the bad press or anything else, we carry it. We don't carry the pride that we have for our husbands, but we carry all that stuff the press tells everybody.

The other thing we have to deal with is the loss of wages. Sometimes it's hard to plan a major purchase. You don't know if you can buy a new car this year because you don't know whether next year you're going to have a mortgage on top of that. These are all things that we have to.... Most people can sit down and do at least a little bit of financial planning. They can say we can put so much money away this year, but we can't do that. We don't know where we're going to be next year. We don't have that luxury.

The other thing we have is that our wages fluctuate. You don't make the same thing in Nova Scotia as you do in Ontario or Newfoundland. When we went to Newfoundland, I took a 45% cut in my hourly wage, and then I went from a full-time to a part-time job, so it was like a 65% cut. You can't forecast those things all the time, and all that affects your day-to-day life.

• 2235

Because of the move and the exam writing and stuff, one year I think we ended up paying $1,500 for exam fees and course fees and licensing fees and that type of thing. But those are things that sometimes you just cannot forecast.

Usually when you move to a place you go on a house-hunting trip or you go to some place to familiarize yourself. Maybe at that point somebody can be there to be your liaison into the community. Maybe somebody can be there to start your networking so that you don't have to wait until after you move to a place, after you get the kids settled in, after you get your house and furniture and everything else. Maybe you can start that networking when you go on a house-hunting trip.

But we need people to help us to do that, and maybe that's where you can come in. Maybe there can be a project or funding for that. If we can take our résumés when we go on house-hunting trips and speak to somebody at that point, they can start the networking for us. Then when we move to a place, we can walk in. At least then we're a few months ahead of the game.

Or maybe an EI specialist.... I've been to many employment centres. We went to Goose Bay. Goose Bay has two pharmacies and a hospital that I could work at. When I went to this place, it was like I was begging for welfare. The guy at the employment centre called all the pharmacies just to make sure I had checked to see if I could find a job. There are only two. You can't lie in a place like that. And yes, I worked at both of them and at the hospital and on the base. You work wherever you can. But you don't need those kinds of barriers when you go to a place. These people should be helping us, not be setting up barriers.

When we went to Trenton the lady at the UI centre said it must be so difficult when you're moving around all the time to find jobs and then have to leave them. I wanted to hug her. I wanted to live there forever. I've never found friendly people at employment centres or EI. That is one more barrier for us.

Karen mentioned that there's a grant for a résumé. I think we need more than just a résumé. We need a grant or some kind of specialist—maybe an employment agency in the community for people who know the community and all the jobs in the community. Maybe it would help us if that was part of the movement grant—you could have a grant for employee services.

But don't put in those stipulations that you must have worked the last time. If you're pregnant and you have a baby, you can't expect somebody to keep a job open for you for three months when in three months you're going to be posted somewhere else. It's very difficult to do that. Sometimes you're not working in every place. Sometimes employment isn't available. So those restrictions that you must have worked in a previous posting should be removed.

That's all I have on employment. Carole mentioned something about the medical field. I worked as both a military pharmacist and a civilian pharmacist, and I can tell you that it was a lot better as a civilian. People could come up and talk to me the way they wanted to talk to me. There wasn't any rank barrier and there were no problems that whatever they told me was going any further. I noticed that a lot, and it really makes a difference.

The only other thing I had a question about was the guaranteed resale plan for houses. Is that in there permanently now, or is it still just a trial thing? Things like that should be definite. It's been a trial for a couple of years. We have to know when we move, when we get posted the next time, whether that's going to be available to us.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Theresa, I could be wrong here, but I think the housing situation you just mentioned is still under review and is still a pilot project. I think it's still on.

Ms. Theresa Schopf: Why is it still a trial?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I don't know. We'll try to find that out for you.

Ms. Theresa Schopf: It shouldn't still be a trial. It's been there for a couple of years and it's working.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, I know.

• 2240

Are there any other questions for Theresa?

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next is Reg Gilbert.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Chaplain Reginald Gilbert (Base Chaplain, 22 Wing, Canadian Forces Base North Bay): I'm only here because I was asked to be.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Chaplain Reginald Gilbert: Everything that everybody's been telling you tonight is true. Really. We have these difficulties that we have to face on a day-to-day basis and we have people who have difficulties finding jobs when they move from base to base.

We used to employ our people. We used to have DND schools where some of our people were teachers. We used to have civilian occupations that some of our people used to work in. We used to employ them ourselves. We don't do that any more.

And not only that, we used to have situations where medical care was like you had choices: you had more than one doctor in town, and you even had more than one church. I had to throw that in there.

I was asked a question this morning that I didn't have the opportunity to think up my answer to and it's come up a couple of times since. And when I was walking back from the mess to my office a voice came to me. Voices come to me often. The voice said “Clarify yourself.”

And this was a question, sir, that you asked me: what is it other than money that you can do to try to help our situation? And I have an answer for you. This is to you from me. I've written it out:

The federal government and the people of Canada need to renew the relationship with the Canadian Forces, in that its policies need to reflect a commitment to the sovereignty of Canada and to the people of the Canadian Forces whose mandate it is to maintain that sovereignty.

Within that renewed relationship or covenant there needs to be a commitment on the part of the people of this nation, through the Government of Canada, to ensure that there is military adequate to reasonably carry out its mandate.

Included in this covenant would be the committed funding to ensure the appropriate number of military personnel, proper training, and a solid support network to meet the unique needs of our personnel and assist them in meeting the requirements of our mandate.

In the interim, an influx of moneys to boost up our already declining numbers, training resources and support networks, as well as a solid and positive public awareness campaign, would aid our slumping morale problem and pave the way for a renewed commitment in the very near future.

In return, you would reinforce and reinstil a pride in the members of the Canadian Forces that moves them to the solid commitments and work ethic that has been evident in the recent participation of Canadian Forces personnel in the various disaster relief support efforts and other such efforts that go unnoticed.

You will get a tremendous return on your dollars. By and large, we love our country, we love the military, and we will continue to serve with honour and pride.

I respectfully submit this to you. Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much. Could I get you to table that, Reg, please?

Chaplain Reginald Gilbert: They want me to come up there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We do want you to come up here. We want to make sure we have your brief too. Just table it with the clerk. Thank you very much.

Next I'd like to call on Captain Kevin Mercer.

Captain Kevin Mercer (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I am the wing construction engineering officer here on the base. There are three things I want to talk about.

The first thing I'll talk about is the posting allowance; it's just a personal pet peeve of mine. Whenever we get posted we get an extra month's pay, and every year at tax time, right after your posting period, that increases my net income so that the child tax benefit payment the government gives me—because I have five children—goes down. Because of that one little blip in my income I lose a whole year's payments. If that were a non-taxable benefit, there would be a lot of people here who would be very appreciative. Speaking of tax breaks, because we have a balanced budget now, I don't think that would be a lot to give up.

• 2245

The second thing I'd like to talk about is the number of taskings the Canadian Forces have received in the last few years. Since the Cold War has ended and the drastic drawdown of the armed forces has taken place, I don't think I'm incorrect in stating that the Canadian Forces have been deployed more now than since the Korean War. As a matter of fact, we deployed more troops at one time in the recent ice storm than we deployed to Korea during the Korean conflict.

This has a significant impact on the operation here at 22 Wing CFB North Bay. I'll take as a particular example the graphic panel, which I think you all toured this afternoon. The graphic panel is the nerve cell for all the life support systems in the underground complex. Not to trivialize the operation that 22 Wing carries out here, we are responsible for the aerospace sovereignty not just of Canada, but of North America.

A year before I came here we had a significant power failure where the operations side of the house was non-mission-capable for 45 minutes. This means we had no eyes in the north for 45 minutes. To the commander of air command and now 1CAD, and also to the CDS, the Prime Minister, the CINC NORAD and the President of the United States, that is an unacceptable situation.

All that said, the people who run the graphic panel to ensure that when there is a power failure we can get the power back on within minutes so that the other side doesn't go non-mission-capable are called electrical generating systems technicians, EGS techs. This trade is the most highly tasked trade in the armed forces. We don't have enough of them and we send them everywhere.

Right now we have four EGS techs on shift and we run twelve-hour shifts. We went from running three eight-hour shifts to two twelve-hour shifts, which increased the working hours from 160 to 192 hours a month.

The point I am trying to make is that we are severely undermanned. When we had the big reduction here they took away two EGS tech positions that were for national taskings, one being the Golan Heights, one being Alert. You had to have six A-qualified EGS techs to run the power plants in those areas.

We have a power plant and the graphic panel to run. We have a sergeant in the power plant and one untrained private. We have four sergeants on the graphic panel.

We had a situation in the fall where one sergeant became sick. He was away and nobody could take leave because they had to backfill his position on the graphic panel. No one could go on a career course; no one could do any training. We had one person in the power plant who was working eight hours a day and on call for the other sixteen hours.

This is a situation that caused a summary investigation when we had the power failure, which I referred to, in 1996. The commander of 1CAD will not accept that situation again. Yet we keep getting taskings from 1CAD, which in turn come from the J staff in NDHQ.

My primary complaint since I've been here is that I need more bodies. The wing commander is very familiar with my story or my whining, whatever you want to call it. The biggest whine in North Bay is my saying that I need more EGS techs.

The engineers, of whom I am one and Major Sherwood is another, have more medals now than combat infanteers, because they are the most highly tasked people. I have had people working for me who have been to Cambodia, Rwanda, the Golan Heights, Bosnia, not once, but twice. They keep going away.

All these people have to look forward to is no promotions, no pay raises, and six months out of every eighteen months away from home. The reason I say eighteen months is because, especially with respect to the EGS techs, there is a CFAO that states you will be back in the country one full year before you are tasked out again. That's why you are out six months out of every eighteen.

• 2250

We have a situation coming up now where we're going to have two sergeants taken off the graphic panel this year: one is going to Bosnia, one is going to Alert. Both are going for six months, and they're going to overlap for the majority of the six months. We are trying to hire a civilian right now. My statement with respect to this is that we have to cut down on taskings or we have to increase the personnel.

I had a discussion earlier today with one of the members and I stressed this point. I don't know any business that increases production significantly, as we have done in the past ten years, and reduces significantly, as we have done in the past few years. You would go bust.

We have to have more people to do the job. It's unacceptable for a two-star general in 1CAD to take a power failure. If we don't have the bodies, if people get sick, and God help us if someone gets killed on the road, we just don't have the people to do the job.

Let me relate this all to the budget and the almighty buck. I look after all the infrastructure here on this base. That's my job. I manage the largest share of the wing commander's budget. This year I had to cut down on my business plan, which doesn't mean a whole lot when you send it up. They tell us we all have to do business plans but nobody pays any attention to them. My budget alone was almost the complete base budget. So I had to give up a whole bunch of things that I was planning on doing and fixing. All the life-support systems in the underground complex are 30-some years old and some of them need replacing.

If we ever have a catastrophic failure, we may go non-mission-capable for an extended period of time. We need more money or we need fewer taskings. We need something done.

One thing the Canadian Forces is famous for is being resourceful. And we always do more with less. As far as I'm concerned, that's not correct. Even doing the same with less is not correct. It's unsafe. We have people working on mechanical systems on the roof of the underground complex by themselves, which is not a safe situation. They're working in fans that you can walk into. Just ask the wing commander. He's been in most of them.

Somebody has to say sometime to somebody that less means less. I'm sure that everybody here is familiar with This Hour Has 22 Minutes. Rick Mercer, who just happens to have the same last name as I do, got up one time, right after the ice storm, and he gave his little monologue. He said: Who needs the Canadian Forces? The Canadian government figures we don't need them. The Canadian people don't figure we need them, unless you have the odd ice storm, you have the odd little flood in Manitoba, or you have the odd forest fire up north. He said: Why do these people get out of bed at 2 a.m. to go off and do this? Why? It's because that's what they do. Then he talked about the reserves and how they get up and they go do it all for the great amount of money that they do it for—$30 a day before taxes.

Anyway, we either have to cut down, to stop being the yes-men and saying to everybody that every UN tasking that comes up we're going to get.... Because our government doesn't say no. I can see people going off to Kosovo fairly soon. That's the next one I've heard about in the news. If we don't stop doing this, we're going to be sending more troops home in body bags.

Thanks very much.

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

Next we have Ray Smith.

Mr. Ray Smith (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, I would like to give you a bit of background. I'm 51, and 51 of those years I have spent either as a dependant in the military or serving with the reserves.

I would like to briefly touch on three topics: the pay system, the benefits, and alternative service delivery as far as the medical world is concerned, because that's what my specialty is.

• 2255

First, on the pay system—my wife alluded to it earlier—the reserve system in the last ten years has had three pay systems. The first one was the manual RDS system, where everything was done by hand, mailed in and input. Then they went to IRPPS. It was tried out west, and it didn't work. So they tried it on the east coast, and it didn't work. They spent $17 million on this pay system. Now we're into a new pay system that doesn't work 100% of the time. So we're wasting money.

We all work for the same boss. Why don't we use systems that work, instead of trying to create new systems? It's wasting money. We want more people; we want to employ more soldiers. If we stopped wasting all of this money on systems that don't work, we would have money to hire more soldiers.

Secondly, on the benefits system, as I said, I've been with the reserves for going on 30 years. I started out at $8 and some odd cents a day. We got paid once a year, and we're now getting paid twice a month, sometimes.

There are benefits that are now being offered to the reserves, except that if you want to apply for an emergency cash loan and you live in say Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, or Rouyn-Noranda, the answer out of Ottawa is, well, we only offer those loans at the start of contract and you must present yourself and your family in Ottawa for an interview.

If the individual's wife is working and they have kids in school, from Sault Ste. Marie, Rouyn-Noranda, or Timmins, it's a three-day trip to Ottawa, which means the wife has to take three days off work and probably won't get paid for it and you have to take the kids out of school for three days. Plus, the member himself has to take three days off, so now our already short unit is short one person for three days.

We're talking a lot of money when you figure that you have to pay for meals, accommodations, and travel expenses for your family to go to Ottawa. Then there's no guarantee that they're going to let you have the money at the end of all that.

So here's a person who is hard up or needs a loan, who has to spend more money to try to get a loan, and the red tape is just unbelievable. The system says we're here to help you. It doesn't always work.

The third thing I'd like to address is alternate service delivery. The medical system under Operation Phoenix several years ago decided that they could do better by going to alternate service delivery. I read the report on the trial on the east coast.

There are many problems with alternate service delivery in the medical world. The three biggest ones are, first, it's not cost-effective. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether you wear a green, blue, or grey uniform; if you walk into the emergency department to be seen, you can't walk to the head of the line. If they thought Somalia was bad, once we start doing that in the civilian emergency departments, the PR would be extremely poor.

The third thing is, if you need to have knees scoped, it used to be when NDMC was viable your appointment would be made usually within a month or two months, and you'd have the problem fixed. Now, with alternate service delivery, it's “Yes, your knee needs to be scoped, so we'll put you on the waiting list”. This is now September, and the OR is booked until November or December. So now you have a soldier you can't use, because he's broken. Because he has to have a category because he can't do his normal job, he's now restricted as to what he can do. Then, as was stated earlier, enough of those restrictions and you can't be fixed; you're out the door.

• 2300

The military is great for helping people. We break the soldier, but we don't want to fix him. We kick him out. Take the people who came back from the gulf with Gulf War syndrome. They got sick, they couldn't work, they weren't employable, and it's so long, goodbye, and you're left to your own devices to try to seek compensation from the government.

My new role with the military is to try to improve the quality of medical life for the full-time members of the military who are posted to places such as Sault Ste. Marie, Timmins, Rouyn-Noranda, and Sudbury, because the reg force bases are being cut back. In their medical service, they don't have the medical staff there that they had before. I'm not exactly sure what the base.... I know they have one contract doctor here, plus the wing surgeon.

We're talking about quality of life. I'll use Sault Ste. Marie as an example. Say a member and his family get posted to Sault Ste. Marie. The waiting list for a family doctor in Sault Ste. Marie is about 3,500 people. So you move into Sault Ste. Marie, you've lost the support network that was there when you were on a base, and if you want a family doctor, you can't get one, so you're constantly going through emergency departments or clinics and you see a different doctor every time.

One of my jobs is to try to change that. I just finished doing Timmins and Rouyn-Noranda, and in Timmins I was fortunate enough to find a doctor who was interested in taking on the dependants of the reg force people. There's one reg force person posted in Timmins and they have one full-time reservist. So there's no support network for the family of that full-time member who's posted up there. Well, they now have a doctor who will look after the families. I have a dentist up there who will look after the families and the members.

I went into Rouyn-Noranda, and unfortunately we couldn't come to an agreement with the doctor, because he was looking for a quick money turnaround system, but I did get a dentist and I did get a pharmacist who was willing to bill the system. Right now, when you go to these outlying areas, if you go and see the family doctor and you have a prescription for yourself, it comes out of pocket. You have to pay up front, do the paperwork, submit the claim through to the supporting base hospital, and it could be months before you get your money back.

So we're trying to increase the level of support we give to the military family.

The other problem we have out there is this. The military family used to have good support, and I thought in northern Ontario we were hard up. Well, wait until you move into northern Quebec. If you live in Val d'Or, and if a young lady is going to deliver, the maternity hospital is in Rouyn-Noranda, which is about 108 kilometres away. That is fine travelling in the summertime, but in the wintertime, there are snowstorms.

If you break your arm in Rouyn-Noranda on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, you have to travel to Amos to get it fixed, because there are no orthopedic services in Rouyn-Noranda. At least in Ontario most of the hospitals have those services and that can be taken care of.

So we have a big problem that we don't look after the military family medically the way we used to.

The last crew that went over to Bosnia sent a major down here for his screening. They sent him downtown to the dentist to have his dental screening done. I could have done that in Sault Ste. Marie. They paid the TD, paid the cost to ship him down here to have it done, when they could have done it for half the price in Sault Ste. Marie.

• 2305

That's all I have to say. Are there any questions?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): No, I think you hit just about everything, Ray. Thank you very much.

This brings to a close our hearings for tonight in North Bay. On behalf of the committee, I would like to take the time to thank you all for attending. I'd like to thank the base personnel, and in particular Major Dan Migneault, for their organizational skills. Dan has been with us all day, and we really appreciate his organizing our trip.

Dan, thank you very, very much.

It's safe to say that your various comments this evening have been very helpful to the committee, and thanks again for joining us this evening.

We are adjourned until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m. The committee will reconvene in Ottawa.