NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 28, 1998

• 1531

[English]

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

This afternoon we have with us General Baril, General Wendy Clay, and Chief Petty Officer Meloche regarding the economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Forces.

General, I am sure you're aware of the way in which we operate. We give you 10 or 15 minutes to do your presentation and then we go to questions and answers.

I understand both you and General Clay have presentations to make. After we hear both presentations we can go to a question period.

General, please lead us off.

[Translation]

General J.M.G. Baril (Chief of Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon.

Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, the purpose of my appearance before you today is twofold. First, I'm here to introduce a series of four hearings on care of injured and retired personnel, and I will get to that introduction in a few moments.

[English]

Second, I'm here to demonstrate and emphasize to you that resolving the military's quality of life challenges is the number one priority of the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence.

To date you've heard from ADM(Per), from the environmental chiefs of staff, from subject matter experts, from privates to generals, and from everyone in between. Undoubtedly, military quality of life issues demand the attention of no less than the Chief of Defence Staff. This is why I'm here today. Allow me to illustrate for you the extent of my commitment to this cause.

[Translation]

Over the last several years, due to increased competition for every defence dollar, quality of life problems have become very acute. We have had a lot on our plate, not the least of which has been budget cutting and downsizing. Dealing with profound institutional change meant that energies that should have been spent looking after quality of life issues were diverted elsewhere. This committee has seen and heard the results of this lack of attention.

[English]

Having become acute, the situation is finally getting the attention it deserves. A history of your own committee's work on quality of life and your tireless work on this study do provide a clear indication of your commitment to the Canadian Forces.

Likewise, in the last 18 months we in the Canadian Forces have retargeted our energies towards addressing quality of life issues.

[Translation]

To begin with, internal policies are being revisited. Guided by the complaints of the men and women who are subject to these policies, we have begun to revise the ones that conflict needlessly with, or place an unnecessary burden on, the lives of our service members.

[English]

For example, we have succeeded in changing the policy on the indexation of annuity pay to Canadian Forces personnel released on medical grounds. Previously, a member released under item 3a, meaning that the member is unable or unfit to perform any duties as a member of the service, would receive an immediate indexation for his annuity.

Conversely, a member from the same unit released under item 3b, meaning that the member is unable or unfit to perform duties in his present trade or employment and is not otherwise advantageously employable, would not receive an immediate indexation.

• 1535

This was unfair. I am pleased to say that all members who now are released under items 3a and b will receive an immediate indexation of his or her annuity upon release.

[Translation]

This is an example of the approach we are taking towards existing policies—if they need to be changed, I will not hesitate to do so, whatever the situation may be, and I may perhaps have to apologize afterwards.

[English]

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

General, we don't seem to have what you're talking about in our notes. Is it possible for you to make sure we get that?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I was told, before walking in here, that you did have a copy of my text.

Mr. Bob Wood: We have a copy, but what you were just talking about is not in it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The comments you just made do not appear in your brief. Perhaps you could give us a copy of them later.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Certainly. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

To the greatest extent possible, we are also reallocating funds to areas that directly affect the conditions of service for our members.

The last series of comparability adjustments—$155 million for both the regular and reserve forces—are being paid for out of existing budgets. The reserve force Get Well program, a $61 million initiative, is also being paid for out of existing budgets, as are improvements to family support services, at a cost of $75 million over five years.

In our search for moneys for quality of life projects, no spreadsheet in the department has been left untouched. This is the nature of our commitment to quality of life. I don't know how much more we can afford, but one thing is clear: we cannot afford to neglect the problem any longer.

These initiatives are only a few of the hundreds currently under way in the department. To ensure that timely progress is being made and that organizational momentum for solving quality of life problems does not wane, Armed Forces Council has established a project management office. Initially this office will manage the implementation of internal quality of life projects—in other words, the initiatives within our control. When the time comes, it will be ready to take on the responsibility of implementing changes that flow from your report.

Having said this, I would urge that you not misconstrue internal departmental effort as an attempt to pre-empt this committee's report and recommendations. While we look to the committee to assist us in fixing problems that we are powerless to fix, it is my duty to continuously seek and implement solutions to problems that are within my purview to resolve.

Our concurrent work is complementary. This is the responsible way to proceed. Our goals are the same, so the ongoing work of the department will neither pre-empt nor conflict with the committee's final report.

[Translation]

As for my other purpose here today, I would like to make a few comments about the subject matter at hand. Medical care for military personnel—in garrison, in theatre, in sickness and in health—is an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the CF, the government and the country. Nothing further needs to be said about the importance of this topic.

Today you will be hearing from the Director General of Health Services. In your second session on the topic later this week, you will receive a briefing from the author of the Care of Injured Personnel and Their Families Review, Lieutenant-Colonel Rick McLellan. And I'm very pleased that in sessions three and four, you will be hearing from Veterans' groups and officials from Veterans' Affairs Canada.

[English]

I expect that your discussions with all of these witnesses will clarify many of the issues you heard about in your travels to bases across the country. For my part, I would like to draw your attention to one challenge in particular—the challenge of outmoded laws.

At the present time, legal definition of the terms “veteran” and “special duty area” are having a negative impact on our ability to care for Canadian military personnel injured in the service of their country.

As the law stands today, Canada will not have any more veterans unless Canada officially goes to war. But we will continue to send Canadians into war in support of our foreign policy. Since 1990 Canada has sent its military into some of the most gruesome, violent, and unstable situations history has ever seen. More than 20,000 Canadian troops have been deployed to the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Haiti, Africa and Cambodia, to name but a few. As I speak, 2,000 of them are still out there. Yet according to Canadian law, we don't have even one veteran to show for it.

• 1540

Current law also discriminates against Canadian Forces personnel who are injured in the line of duty on Canadian soil. The sacrifice of Corporal Guay, who lost his hand during Operation Assistance in Manitoba, is no different from the sacrifice of Private Anderson, who lost his leg while deployed to UNPROFOR in the former Yugoslavia. But because one was in a “special duty area”, the entitlements of the two soldiers are very different indeed.

These are not the policies of a country that values its military members' willingness to sacrifice all. They are not the policies of a country that takes seriously its moral responsibility for the well-being of its military. And they are certainly not the policies of a country that is hoping to fashion a more acceptable quality of life for its military.

I suspect that what you hear over the course of the next four hearings will convince you of the gravity of the situation, and I look forward to your recommendations on these matters.

[Translation]

In closing, I would like to make three suggestions. First, the solutions to our major challenges lie in identifying appropriate resources and improving policy co-ordination with other departments, agencies and, in some cases, other governments. That being said, I am pleased to say that co-operation between DND and VAC has reached new heights. We have put in place an executive- level exchange program to facilitate a better working relationship between departments and I am pleased to have DVA officials with me here today.

[English]

My second suggestion is that we cannot begin to resolve the “softer” problems, such as fear, mistrust, bitterness, and indignation, until small “p” politics and organizational obstacles are removed—in other words, until bureaucracy serves us, not the opposite.

Third, I submit to you that in looking for solutions, trade-offs among quality of life factors are not an option. For instance, child care cannot be sacrificed for the sake of improved housing. The operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces is tied to the quality of the military's conditions of service, their quality of life. Under the umbrella of quality of life, no one element can be negotiated away without eroding the service member's confidence in the military's commitment to him or her and without bringing down the overall conditions of service.

So I repeat, in looking for solutions, trade-offs among quality of life elements cannot be an option.

[Translation]

Finally, as you look for solutions, keep in mind that Canadians have historically given members of the military the support they need. The only challenge is to make the Canadian public aware of the military's needs. The work of this committee has received considerable media attention, and the natural disasters of the last 18 months have brought the military into our homes and communities. The Canadian public is finally being made aware, and I know they are supportive of change.

[English]

It's my pleasure now to turn this presentation over to Major-General Wendy Clay, director general of health services and surgeon general of the Canadian Forces.

Although this series is entitled “Care of Injured”, General Clay's presentation is designed to give you an idea of the challenges that all military personnel are encountering in their health care system, whether they are injured, sick, or simply reporting for a routine medical. Her presentation will set the stage for your upcoming discussion with Lieutenant-Colonel McLellan, which is aimed more specifically at the care of our injured people.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, General Baril.

[English]

General Clay.

Major-General Wendy Clay (Director General of Health Services, Surgeon General, Canadian Forces, Department of National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

It is indeed a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to appear before you today. Previous speakers before this committee have spoken of the direct relationship that exists between the quality of life of our service members and their morale and operational effectiveness. Nowhere, I would suggest, is this more apparent than in the realm of health care, which is often regarded as a sacred right.

During your visits, you have heard concerns expressed about the availability of specialist care, care of our injured soldiers, and “why can't we simply get a health care card and go downtown?”

In your briefings, you've also heard about the need to improve the tooth-to-tail ratio. With the budgetary constraints under which the department is operating, it is entirely appropriate that funding and personnel should be directed towards the so-called sharp end. What this means, however, is that support services such as medical and dental are placed under particular scrutiny, with a view to either outright civilianization or providing the service under an alternate service delivery option.

• 1545

Before I go further, it might be worth reminding you of the mandate under which health care is provided to members of the Canadian Forces. As you know, the Constitution Act has assigned the responsibility for health care to the provinces. At the same time, the Canada Health Act defines an insured person as “a resident of the province, other than a member of the Canadian Forces”. Thus, if health care were not provided by uniformed military personnel, the department would be obliged to purchase the service from the civilian sector.

Since health care is a provincial responsibility, it follows that certain differences in availability, standards, and costs may occur across the country. No one, I am sure, is unaware of the concerns being expressed by Canadians with regard to the impact of budgetary constraints on the quality and availability of health care.

With these facts in mind, I would like to describe some of the recent changes to the delivery of health care within the Canadian Forces. You will be hearing in a separate presentation the issues surrounding the care of the injured soldier. Therefore, in this briefing I would like to focus on some of the implications of these changes in the provision of day-to-day medical care to our patients, the servicemen and women, their dependants, their commanders, and finally, the medical personnel themselves.

[Translation]

Historically, the Canadian Forces Medical Service, the SCMS, provided medical care that was highly recognized within this country as being "second to none". We had military hospitals situated in Cold Lake, Ottawa, Valcartier, Halifax and Lahr, Germany. Some of you may even have heard the National Defence Medical Centre here in Ottawa described as the "Taj Mahal". While that was somewhat an exaggeration, the hospital did offer a range of specialty and sub-specialty services.

[English]

All that changed, however, with the 1990 auditor general's report, which noted that the Canadian Forces medical support system was not designed to meet wartime requirements. It has evolved to meet primarily peacetime needs. Furthermore, the report went on to state that the costs of operating military hospitals was generally high in comparison with civilian facilities. Subsequent audits and evaluations reached similar conclusions.

As a result of these findings, coupled with the increased emphasis on operational capability I referred to a moment ago, in 1994 the Canadian Forces Medical Service was directed to undertake a strategic planning venture aimed at developing an operationally oriented, viable, and cost-effective medical support system for the Canadian Forces.

While I will not go into the details of this exercise, which has had a somewhat tortuous history, suffice it to say that our current concept of operations was developed in conjunction with the responsible planning staff and is based upon a common understanding of what the CFMS must be capable of supporting and under what conditions. Our aim was to identify the initial life-saving surgical and medical capability, or role 3, necessary to support forces deployed for any of the 1994 white paper tasks. A 400-bed field surgical hospital was identified as representing the upper end of the deployed role 3 medical capability required to support the Canadian Forces in mid-intensity combat operations.

Full development of this level of medical capability is not consistent with today's fiscal realities, however. We are therefore developing an organization whose cornerstone is a 100-bed field medical hospital. Such an organization will be able to support the tasks assigned by the white paper in operations other than war and will provide the requisite platform from which a larger organization could be mounted, if required.

With this new operational focus, the primary justification for medical personnel to be in uniform today is because they are required in support of operations. If they don't have the potential to deploy, generally speaking they can be civilians. For example, we have identified what we call core specialists who would deploy with the field hospital. These include general and orthopedic surgeons, anesthetists, internal medicine specialists, psychiatrists, and radiologists. Virtually all other specialists and sub-specialists have been released from the Canadian Forces and their services are being purchased from the civilian sector.

There are, however, a limited number of additional occupations, such as bioscience officers, whose services are not readily available in the civilian sector. Then there are preventive medicine technicians, social worker officers, and physiotherapists, whose retention in uniform can be supported on a business-case basis. These personnel are also being included within the CFMS.

As a result of these initiatives, the size of the CFMS has been reduced by approximately 500 personnel to 2,496 regular force members, and its mix of occupations has changed significantly.

Another significant change that has occurred, partly because of the changes in the civilian health care sector but primarily as a result of the reduction in the size of the Canadian Forces itself to 60,000 members, is the closure of our military hospitals.

• 1550

While we are retaining health care facilities with a very limited number of in-base patient beds, they are being utilized mainly for elective and day surgery cases. Any attempt to retain them as full tertiary-care facilities would clearly neither be cost effective nor clinically prudent. An excellent example is the former National Defence Medical Centre, which used to have a 300-bed capacity. With the military population base no longer able to sustain it and no requirement on the part of the Government of Ontario for additional in-patient beds, it has been reduced to a 40-bed facility, with the remainder of the building being devoted to ambulatory care and medical office space.

[Translation]

What do these changes mean for our patients, the men and women of the Canadian Forces? Although we will be using our military medical personnel to provide medical services in garrison when they are not deployed or on training, there will clearly be a greater reliance on the civilian sector for professional services, ancillary services such as laboratory, physiotherapy and diagnostic imaging and, of course, for hospitalization. This reliance comes at the very time that the civilian sector itself is having to adjust, to varying degrees, to provincial budgetary constraints.

[English]

In order to facilitate the provision of health care services to our members when they are not deployed, we have been carrying out trials on the east coast with the Canadian Forces health care plan. The cornerstone of this plan is the concept of the third-party administrator, whose primary role is to establish a network of civilian preferred health care providers as backup when military medical personnel are deployed. The scope of this health care plan is defined by the spectrum of care that is established by my office and is somewhat analogous to the care provided under the public service health care plan.

The extent of reliance on the civilian sector will vary depending on the location of the base. In more isolated areas, such as Goose Bay and Cold Lake, for example, health care will continue to be provided largely by military caregivers. In more urban areas, use of the civilian sector will be proportionately greater. Therefore, the extent of change noticed by the service member may well vary depending on his or her posting location. It will be particularly noticeable in areas such as Ottawa, with the change in status of the former National Defence Medical Centre.

While the quality of care is expected to be undiminished, the sense of being cared for within the family may no longer be present and may be particularly difficult for a patient who is adjusting to such serious conditions as cancer.

Dependants of service members are less affected by these changes, as they have generally been covered under provincial health care plans. Downsizing of the CFMS is, however, one of the main reasons why we are no longer able to provide dependant care at the more remote bases, such as Cold Lake, as used to be the norm in the past. This decreased convenience is seen as a reduction in service and has certainly been a significant dissatisfier for both the service members and their families.

Changes in the provision of in-garrison care will also be noticed by commanders. There may well be longer waiting times to access certain services, again depending on the location and the service required, and there may be a perception of inequality of health care across the country, an inevitable consequence, I would suggest, of health care being a provincial responsibility.

[Translation]

Finally, we must not forget the impact of these changes on the health of care providers themselves. For the sake of simplicity, I will restrict my remarks to medical officer or physicians, but they pertain, to a varying extent, to the other health care professionals such as nurses, pharmacists and dentists.

[English]

Because of the decreased patient base, there is a requirement to take special steps to ensure the maintenance of professional competency. In Edmonton, for example, an agreement has been reached with the Capital Health Authority whereby a military medical detachment has been integrated within the Sturgeon General Hospital. In other cases, individual arrangements have been made for specialists to work, either full or part-time, in civilian facilities. Because of this increased interaction with the civilian medical community, medical officers must be licensed in the province in which they are currently posted, whereas in the past they only needed to be licensed in any one province in Canada provided they treated only military patients. This new requirement to be licensed in the province in which they are practising adds significantly to the administrative burden, as medical officers are normally posted every three to four years and there is limited portability of licensure with each province exercising its own particular licensing regulations.

Retention of medical officers in the CFMS continues to be a source of concern. A significant dissatisfier is the frequency of operational deployments, particularly for our limited number of surgeons and anesthetists. Time away from their home units will also be increased as new initiatives for maintenance of competence are introduced, necessitating, for example, postings to other military or civilian facilities.

• 1555

A continued concern of military medical officers remains the ability to practise medicine in their location of choice following the end of their commitment to the Canadian Forces. Not every province is willing to equate service to country, or time in the Canadian Forces, with service in remote areas, with the result that medical officers fear difficulties in obtaining billing numbers from the province of their choice.

Related to the issue of retention is that of recruitment. Perceived inequities in salary, concerns regarding the scope and quality of clinical practice, and more limited career progression have detracted somewhat from the lustre formally associated with military medical service.

In my view, however, one of the major developments affecting recruitment of medical officers has been the recent change in pre-licensing requirements, whereby medical students must now choose between general practice and a specialty prior to their graduation from medical school. They are therefore less inclined to commit themselves to a period of general practice within the CFMS, with no guarantee that training in the specialty of their choice will be available to them at a later time.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the CFMS is in the midst of probably the greatest period of change in its history. As a result of our increased operational focus, we are entering into partnerships with and becoming increasingly dependent upon the civilian health care community, a community that is experiencing its own challenges. Icons such as military hospitals are disappearing, and health care professionals are less willing to commit themselves to long-term service within the military environment.

Notwithstanding these comments, I believe the CFMS has regained its true vision, which is the provision of medical support to our deployed forces. Our challenge now is to ensure the continued provision of the highest possible quality of care, both at home and abroad, for our soldiers, sailors, and their men and women.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you on this vital subject.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We will now begin the question period.

Mr. Benoit.

[English]

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good afternoon to all of you.

My first question comes from some comments in your brief, General Baril. You refer to the medical care for military personnel, in garrison, in theatre, in sickness and in health, as an absolutely fundamental responsibility of the Canadian Forces.

There's something that has come up quite a bit lately as the committee is travelling, and it came up yesterday again from Ms. Huffman, who I understand is the wife of Colonel Calvin. She was before the committee yesterday, and she commented that she suffers from PTSD as a result of her husband's involvement in a very serious situation, which I know you're aware of.

While your comments and some comments made later have referred to the medical care for members of the forces, is there anything available at all, under any circumstances, to the families of the members, other than through the normal health care system?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I will ask General Clay to talk about the medical legality across the nation, but let me give you my opinion as a soldier who has served in some of the pretty bad places in the world.

When people come out of there, I think the phenomenon is that the one who has a broken mind doesn't know he has a broken mind, or he doesn't want to accept it. He doesn't know that his family has been hurt that much until quite a bit later, and when we go back to 1993—and that was the year of the Medak pocket—if you recall, probably at that time we still thought those who were suffering from the Gulf War syndrome were a bunch of whiners and wimps. We couldn't find what was wrong with them, so we thought it was stress.

We haven't faced a problem of this magnitude for a long time in our forces. I think many of them had a yellow cross on their back in the First and Second World Wars, and some of them were shot when they were suffering from battle stress.

But to us, now, this is a battle casualty. We have people who are very severely wounded, and when we take care of our men and women who are coming back and are wounded like this, we have mechanisms in place—not to detect all of them, because some of them are very difficult to detect. It's the same thing. We probably forgot about the family too.

• 1600

I believe General Dallaire mentioned that he was receiving treatment then. I don't know if I have the right to say it, but he probably won't mind. He didn't mention to you when he got some help. He didn't mention to you when his family started to get some help. It took a lot of pressure from his friends and his subordinates and superiors to make him decide to seek support, and he did in the spring of 1997, three years after, and so did his family.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That demonstrates a very serious problem. I'm pleased that he and his family are getting the help, but that leads to my next question.

First of all, are others in the Canadian Forces, at a lower rank, getting the kind of help they need? I would suggest to you very strongly that we have heard from several as we've travelled as a committee, both in the official hearing and in our sessions between hearings, from people who have very serious problems with this.

There was one lady in Petawawa. I'll never forget her testimony. Her husband was threatening suicide on a regular basis, completely separated from the family. He had been a loving family man before. With the lack of help that this person has received, I wonder whether he and his family are getting the same quality of help that General Dallaire and his family have received.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I cannot even that I hope; I have to be assured it is the case. There cannot be any difference in quality of service that is given to the people who are serving their country, and it doesn't matter which rank they have. They are all wounded for the same reason.

Maybe people have a bit more capability or are luckier and are able to take care of their family, depending on which province they are in. But I cannot depend on whether it's going to happen in the province or not; I must have a mechanism that belongs to the Canadian Forces that allows me to take care, not only of the people but of the family members, as you probably know.

We have family support centres on the bases. We have counsellors who brief the people before they go into operation and when they come back, to detect those anomalies, those people who are coming back into a family they don't recognize any more. The family doesn't recognize the member who is coming back. We have the help in place, but giving—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Are you saying you feel the help is in place now?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Help is there, but I'm sure it's not perfect. We started to put it in place when we realized we were facing a serious problem with the people who were coming back.

I don't claim it's perfect now. It's being improved.

I've been to every base in Canada—except for a few—in the past 12 months, since last October. I went through every family support centre we have. We're pouring in a lot of resources, and there's so much volunteer work and so much concern that—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But family support centres—and you must know this, General—do not offer the kind of help that these men, and in some cases, apparently, their families, need when they're suffering from this extremely serious illness.

First, I'd like you to answer the question, if you would, whether General Dallaire's family did receive help from the military, or did they have to rely entirely on the—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: He and his family did, from the military, through the provincial medical system in the province of Quebec.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm pleased they received that help.

Again, at Petawawa a warrant officer, I believe, commented on his shabby treatment in suffering from this disease. He sure didn't seem like a complainer or a whiner to me. Neither did the lady talking about her husband, and I have a long list of cases here that I could refer to.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Anybody who brings it up either to me or to you is not a whiner. But in 1993, I regret to say that probably many of them were not believed about the damage they had suffered.

A lot of people didn't know that you could come back from there with a broken mind. You didn't even know yourself how much damage you had. And don't forget, a lot of damage will surface the day after, six months after, or three years after, and it's the same for the family. The system has to do better than it did.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that. I think the most important thing with this issue now is not what has happened in the past, although I think we do have to learn from that, but it's what's going to happen from now on.

• 1605

Can you assure the people in the military, who really are counting on much better treatment with this illness, that they're going to get better help?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: That's probably the reason why I'm sitting here, to assure the committee and every man and woman who is serving—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have a specific question along that line. This witness in Petawawa talked about facilities in the United States that would offer, she believed, much better help than she could get anywhere in Canada. If you can't get proper help in Canada, are you going to make access to these clinics available at least for the people who are more severely affected by this disease? In other words, give them what they deserve, which is the very best of help they can get.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: For the ones serving in uniform, I will ask the surgeon general here to provide that service, or we will buy it somewhere else. For the dependent spouses or children who are affected, it's beyond my control. They are under the authority of the provincial facility, and you know as well as I do that there are a lot of things—brain injuries, for example—for which better service is available in the United States. There was quite a bit of debate about this in the public forum.

I am sure some of our dependent members are caught or will be caught and there will be a demand for that. I will be behind them. If there is anything we can do, we will.

You must understand that legally I cannot pay for it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Another alternative, of course, which I was getting to next, is for Canadian military medical people—and I would hope some outside, too—to learn absolutely as much as they can from what the Americans know so that the service, at least in the future, will be available here. It's become fairly widely accepted that post-traumatic stress disorder isn't just something new. It's probably been around as long as there have been wars.

I believe it was the base commander in Petawawa, in our meeting with him, who said that more of the Americans who served in Vietnam died as a result of suicide after they got back than were killed in service overseas. I shouldn't say for certain that it was the base commander, but I almost believe it was. To me this seems to be an astounding statistic or statement. It's clear that because this has been a problem for a long time, it has to be dealt with much better. It hasn't been dealt with well, I believe, in our military.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I think we have moved very quickly. When we started to get involved in this, the Canadian medical service people were actually in demand by the UN and other places to launch the program, because it was entirely new. It was never used for any employees of the United Nations, for example. They started in 1994. The Canadians were providing that service in Kenya, because we were moving into it. We were not going into the dark.

I think we have to give quite a bit of credit to our medical people, who moved quickly. But when you move with that magnitude, you forget some, and some suffer because of that.

The Chairman: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Good afternoon, General. Thank you for your presentation.

I was struck by a comment you just made, that I had not thought about before. You say that military personnel depend on the Canadian Armed Forces, whereas their families, their wives and children, come under provincial jurisdiction according to the Constitution. I find it quite strange that the provinces, which have no say in the deployment of our forces throughout the world, would have the assume the consequences of these deployments without having been involved at all.

Consequently, I think that the families of military personnel should also come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian government or the Armed Forces. That is a consequence of the husband's commitment to the Armed Forces. I don't want to get into a legal discussion with you, but I do find that strange.

I would like to start by congratulating you on the fact that you seem to be aware of the grave state of morale among your members. I can tell you that this is hardly a pretty picture. There seems to be some reprehensible behaviour in a number of areas. Something that has been mentioned often during our hearings is the attitude toward people who are ill or depressed. They are told that if they are not happy they can leave. We have heard comments of that type everywhere.

• 1610

When a member of Armed Forces insists on getting some care for himself or his family, he is told he should ask to be discharged. That is really very pleasant.

We met with a member in Trenton who has a three-year-old paraplegic child. The only hope for this child is to learn to speak. The father has asked for care for his child in Trenton. There is no one who could provide the service in his language. The father was told that he should simply leave. The father in question has 17 years of seniority with the Forces. We find this a reprehensible attitude on the part of authorities who have benefited from this person's commitment for 17 years.

I find this improper, and the attitude is very widespread in the Forces. The member is told to get out if he's not happy. We heard that and we're told that often.

You refer here to the stress post case— I don't know the exact term. In Petawawa, we heard from a young member of the military whose case is similar to the situation I was just describing. This young person was affected by this syndrome. At one point, when he was weak, when he needed care and was unable to understand what was happening, he was convinced to leave the Armed Forces. People told him it would be better for him. And once he was out, we had lost him.

Don't you think it is time that the woman seated next to you start encouraging a more humane, responsible attitude on the part of the people who provide services for members of the military? It's not enough to ask them to risk their lives. We too have an obligation to our military personnel.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: That is not her responsibility, it is mine.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Fine.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: It is up to me and everyone to change attitudes and ensure that no one is told that they should get out. But it is my job to deal with people who make such comments.

There are always attitude problems in any organization, abuse of authority and abuse of power. Unfortunately, the victims of this abuse do not know their rights. They have not been explained well enough to ensure that there won't be this type of bullying. I imagine no one is thrown out of a school or even out of a prison. I therefore fail to understand why some people seem to think they can throw people out of the Canadian Armed Forces using tactics of this type. The procedure is more complicated than that.

Unfortunately, some individuals, because they are terrified, think they have to make decisions that they are being advised to make, even though they're within their rights. That is unacceptable, and I trust that even though you have heard this often in your travels across the country, it is not something that happens every day.

In all the cases you mentioned, such as the one in Trenton where the member could not get the care his child required because of language or the unique features of the case, there is something the doctor, the social worker and the Commanding Officer can do to transfer the member for two years or more so that the family can get the care it requires. There is a procedure for this. The chief who does not use it is one who should not be in that job. The procedures exist—

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Go and see Corporal Paquet—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Give me his name, if you have not already done so. We will first review the case to see whether the story you heard is complete, and I'm not questioning that. Next, we will see what procedures are available. Finally, if no procedures are in place, we will see what we can do. If none of that works, I can still have a say, and if that does not work either, we can appeal to the minister. We will settle this case as quickly as possible.

However, I will acknowledge that it is easier for me, with the stars on my shoulder, which give me a little authority, to say that no one will come and push me around. A corporal who asks questions does not get answers as quickly as I do. Our organization is huge, is made up of people from all parts of Canada, from different social backgrounds. Their training, development, and so on improve the situation. We will not stop until we have established a system that is acceptable to the Canadian public.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I have here a summary of the comments we have heard, General Baril. There is mention of a major who had both legs cut off. Further on, there is a reference to the death of a member on assignment, whose wife received his medals by mail after learning of her husband's death in the newspaper.

• 1615

Do you think incidents of this type help foster a feeling of belonging and pride among the members of the Canadian Armed Forces at the moment?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: That no longer happens. The Silver Cross Mother was notified by mail, and this had probably been the case since the First World War, when that was the only way of doing so. The same happened during the Second World War, the Korean War, and in the case of the first deaths that occurred in 1993. You are probably referring to Daniel Gunther's mother. He was killed by an anti-tank shell. In that case, the medal arrived by mail. I find that absolutely appalling. But it happened because of the system in place at the time, that no one had changed. It is most unfortunate, but that is what happened.

When a mother, spouse or siblings find out indirectly that their loved ones have been killed, the system has broken down somewhere, because our procedure is strict. Accidents happen almost every day. We had some problems last week in Bosnia. One soldier was killed by fire, and there was the situation involving our guys in Drvar. Ensuring that the families in Canada are the first people to hear the news, even good news, is one of our first concerns. When we are not aware, we say so, and we do everything we can to ensure that they don't hear the news through the Internet, from the radio, or from someone calling the mother.

Errors always happen. One of our officers died in an accident last week in Trenton. His spouse was on vacation in Saskatchewan, and it took us almost two days to find her. By that time, everyone on the base had started to hear that there had been an accidental death; I think that in spite of everything, we managed to reach the family before they heard through others. So it can sometimes be very difficult. These absolutely unacceptable incidents that you mentioned no longer happen, at least I hope they do not.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Other members of Parliament and myself have to deal with veterans almost daily. Some still remain from the Second World War. I must draw your attention to the report I have here. I understand that your organization is huge, and I understand that it is impossible to see everything and that some things have to be left up to individuals. However, the report I have here states that it found more evidence of the contempt with which people were treated. The reference is to the affected military personnel.

I heard about the case of a man who had fought in the Second World War and who had needed orthopedic shoes for a long time. He was 75 years old. The Department of Veterans' Affairs sent him a letter stating that orthopedic shoes would no longer be provided. He wrote back stating that no doctor had examined him.

I therefore looked into the case, as do all members of Parliament, to get further information. And as it turned out, a doctor somewhere in the Maritimes had read the file and had decided that he no longer needed orthopedic shoes. I find it strange that a doctor would make a judgment about the health of the patient without even seeing him, without even examining him. The doctor in question is certainly not a corporal. He is certainly one of your high-ranking officers.

So there is this attitude of contempt. I think you are in a good position to work on eliminating this contemptuous attitude toward subordinates, General Baril. There are not many people above you in the armed forces. Perhaps we should make some recommendations to this effect.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I might ask you to mention this specific point to the representatives from the Department of Veterans' Affairs when they appear before you. The matter comes directly under their responsibility. Unfortunately, it does not come under my responsibility. However, like you, I find that unacceptable, particularly if the situation involves one of my uncles.

We are prepared to accept a lot of complaints, but this one does not apply to us.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Gen J.M.G. Baril: That is because these complaints come to me. Many veterans call me at home, because my number is in the telephone book, to tell me about these situations. Legally, I could tell them to take their case elsewhere.

However, we do have some liaison procedures, as I mentioned. I now have a senior officer in the Department of Veterans' Affairs, and vice versa: they have an officer with us. We have close links to the Canadian Legion. They just swore me in as a member. I told them that I was prepared to become a member of the Legion if they would agree to work with us. And they did the same to me.

Bridges need support at both ends. When Canada has finished employing men and women in the Forces, there has to be a strong bridge with guard rails on each side to make sure that they come under another department in the future. We cannot simply drop them.

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

• 1620

[English]

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I start, to my colleague across the way, if he wants to bring that specific case to my attention, I can certainly look at it for Veterans Affairs.

General Baril, in your presentation, at the bottom of page 1, you say, “In our search of monies for quality of life projects, no spreadsheet— has been left untouched”. I guess I'm glad to see that. I've raised this question many times around this table over the last number of years. We heard horror stories even before this review started to take place. You've heard them yourself—things couldn't be done, no uniforms, all this stuff.

So I'm glad to see you're doing this. I'm one of the ones who believe you should have more money to do things with. As long as I'm around here, I'll certainly work to see that this happens.

I'm certainly glad to hear your comments that people who were rejected because they were whiners or whatever are being taken seriously today. I think too many years later these people find out that there is something wrong with them, and what do they do then?

Further down in your presentation you say, “At the present time, legal definitions of the terms `veteran' and `special duty area' are having a negative impact”. I certainly believe that.

I'm thinking out loud on this, I guess, but I think it's time both we as a committee and the government—and I'm talking to my people from Veterans Affairs, who are back here today—really looked at this issue, looked at the status of the men and women coming out of the forces today.

I was just saying to General Richardson here that both he and you people would be considered, by Second World War and Korean War standards, peacetime military people, and you know very well that this hasn't always been the case.

I think the government probably should look seriously at changing the status of veteran, because many times when someone who has only been involved in an exercise gets hurt their status is different from somebody who has been over to the former Yugoslavia or somewhere like that. So I think that's something that has to be looked at.

The other thing I wanted to get you to talk about was your second suggestion. On page 3 you said you “cannot begin to resolve the `softer' problems”. I'd like you to explain that a little further.

To General Clay, in my office one of the questions I get probably as much as any regarding the military and Veterans Affairs is the transition from a military person to Veterans Affairs. Over the last number of years, since the various operations and deployments, many people have come to my office.

I say that, for those of you who don't know me, because my office in Charlottetown is right across the street from Veterans Affairs. It's easier to come there, I guess, than it is to go in there.

As well, I was a critic when we were in opposition and have worked in this area for many years.

I wonder what your views are on this. One young man who came in here awhile ago couldn't get his release, and therefore he couldn't get anything from Veterans Affairs.

Do you see that this process is better, the same, or worse now, or has it been improving in the last while?

MGen Wendy Clay: I would have to say it's improving. My office—specifically, the office of the medical services director, Colonel Cameron, who's here today—is working very closely with Veterans Affairs. Over the past couple of years we have been developing a much closer liaison than we have had in the past. That being said, there are still some problem areas, and undoubtedly there are people still falling, regrettably, between the cracks.

I feel that it's absolutely mandatory and a moral obligation on our part to ensure that a member who is being released and who has a medical problem is transferred to an appropriate level of care, and that when the province takes over his medical care—for example, he's getting treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder—we can pass him to an appropriate civilian physician who can take over his care. We have an obligation to continue the care until we can do that.

But, yes, I think our relationship with Veterans Affairs has definitely been improving over the last couple of years.

• 1625

Gen J.M.G. Baril: If I may address the softer problem, it's just the frustration and outrage, I guess, of the members—of every rank—when they ask for something and then we quote the law of the rules and regulations as to why they can't have it. In the past, and we're still kind of suffering from that, it was, “well, sorry, I can't, I give up”, and that kind of thing. You would hit a brick wall that you just couldn't go around. It's not only the law of the land that we are subject to; there are the Treasury Board rules and regulations, income tax, and a whole bunch of others. When I get something that is logical, totally acceptable, and we have the money to pay for it, I have to say, “Sorry, I cannot reimburse that.”

We are trying to change the laws—and we did—especially the home leave for all the people who are serving overseas. We used to pay for the airplane to come to Newfoundland, the first piece of land, just like Christopher Columbus when he saw land, I guess. That's where we brought them in. Then they had to fly themselves to wherever they were living, and if they were past Winnipeg, I guess, we would pay to fly them to Vancouver and then they could make it back. I don't know where those rules were coming from, but now we send them home for 15 days, wherever they live across the nation, and we pay for it, return. We have other flexibilities, but this was the kind of thing that we could—

The selling and buying of houses and the mortgages and everything is also very complex. And I see them all. I have a big thing written in red on the file when it comes to me: “Sorry, boss, but you don't have the authority to do anything about this one and neither does the minister.”

These people haven't chosen to sell their house or to buy one; we post them away. This is the bureaucracy we have, and you can imagine it when we're going to start things with the provinces and the income tax and all of this. Little old me here can't do it. You have to give me the fire support to attack.

Mr. George Proud: I realize that. And that's the problem. It's not confined to the military. That's the problem that agencies in the Northwest Territories have: you have to fly to a certain place whether it makes sense or not. There are things like that. I realize that.

There's another question I want to ask either of you. They talk about this stress that people have after they come out of these special duty areas. The people talk about it and go to see a doctor about it, or whatever, but what happens to them, say, if they serve their time and leave the forces? This is the question that bothers me. I referred to “veteran's status”. What happens to that man or woman 10 years down the road after he or she has left the forces? What do they do then if they get into problems with their health relating to those special duty areas? Do they have the right, then, to go to Veterans Affairs? I think that's one of the problems we face now, isn't it, that they don't have that?

MGen Wendy Clay: Again, I cannot speak for Veterans Affairs, but one point I'd like to make about the whole post-traumatic stress disorder is that while it may have had different names in other wars, PTSD, as it's currently called, really has a fairly recent history. Really, it's over the last six years or so that we have been developing a program.

I suspect one of the problems, perhaps, with respect to the lower ranks not getting what they want is that there's still, perhaps, among some people, a bit of an image problem in admitting that you in fact have a stress order, a nerve disorder. Maybe they're a little bit more reluctant to come forward. I would suggest that perhaps there's still not a full acceptance within the chain of command in some units for the reality of this particular disorder. This is an attitudinal problem and it is changing.

I also want to come back to your particular question. Technically, there's not a difference between the ranks in terms of treatment, but there might be a little more reluctance on the part of the lower ranks to come forward because of this image situation. This is changing, and it's something we're trying to work on in terms of briefings both to the members and to their families.

In terms of what happens 10 years down the road, it's very difficult to say, because in DND we're not really in a position to follow these individuals, but I would suggest that if the definition of veterans, for example, changes—and I think it's becoming more accepted that post-traumatic stress is a very real entity coming out of some of the deployments we have—I think it would not be difficult to be able to prove some relationship with the terms of service. If that were the case, I suspect they could be eligible for a pension. But, again, I'm out of my area there.

• 1630

The Chairman: Mr. Wood, we have about three minutes left. Did you want to finish?

Mr. Bob Wood: I will just piggyback on what my colleague said.

Who has the authority, General, to change the law on veterans? Who has that authority? Is it yours or is it Canadian law? I'm just looking at what you said in your speech here. You say:

Over 20,000 Canadian troops have been deployed—to the Persian Gulf, to Bosnia, to Haiti, Africa, and Cambodia, to name but a few. And yet, according to Canadian law, we don't have even one veteran to show for it.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I certainly don't have the authority to change the law of the land here. It's a decision by the government, and I suspect it's the Department of Veterans Affairs that would be the lead department to initiate. We have done the staffing from our side to get it out of the Canadian Forces into the department to push it forward.

Mr. Bob Wood: I was just curious.

You mentioned, Major-General Clay, that you recently downsized the Canadian Forces Medical Service to approximately 2,500 doctors. You have also stated in your speech that the number one priority is the service's operational capability and deployment. Just give me a ballpark figure of what percentage of your staff is on operations at any one time. Are virtually all your members considered deployable?

MGen Wendy Clay: Yes, virtually all of them are deployable. The exact number who are on operations right now is probably fairly small. We have an advance surgical centre over in Bosnia with approximately between 30 and 40 people. We have a couple of people over in Africa. We don't have a large number.

We have a number of people who are in operational units. In other words, all our members who are in field ambulances—we have three field ambulances across the country—are considered operational units. Those who are onboard ships are operational, so in that sense they're operational.

I would like to correct something in regard to the number of actual positions. We don't have 2,500 doctors. Far from it. We have 2,500 medical hat badges, and that includes doctors, nurses, medical assistants—the whole gamut. In fact, at the moment, our current numbers are approximately 2,100.

Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Chairman, I want to address the issue, because it's been in the news lately, of the effectiveness of immunization of Canadian personnel being deployed overseas. Major General, do we perform any of our own testing to ensure that vaccines will be effective, or do we rely on the Americans or others for that assurance? Do we have any stockpiles of vaccines for deployments in potential areas of conflict where disease or biological agents could be a factor? Are there any contingency plans for dealing with the need to rapidly obtain these vaccines?

MGen Wendy Clay: Do we do our own testing? No, not directly if we obtain the vaccine say from the United States. We have a number of multilateral working parties where we share information and share regulatory procedures. We do keep a certain number of stockpiles. I can't say what we have stockpiled right at the moment. The whole regulatory issue is something that is very immediate right now. We work very closely with Health Canada to try to clarify some issues. As you know, we have used substances in the past where we've had to get special permission from Health Canada on a case-by-case basis. This is something we are attempting to regularize at the moment.

Unfortunately, the number of personnel we have and our requirements at any given point in time really don't make it very cost effective that we should be able to either manufacture many of these more unique vaccines or test them ourselves.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Price.

• 1635

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

Welcome, Generals. It's nice to have you here today so we can pick your minds.

I guess you've been following what has been going on across the country, as far as what we've been hearing, and obviously you've paid attention to some of it. We see some things you mentioned today and we have seen other things that are under your power at the moment to do. We've heard most of the problems to this point; we're looking more for solutions.

That brings me to an item that just came up today, which is the auditor general's report, and I'll just read you a couple of lines here. It says that while Canadian soldiers are expected to “fight alongside the best, against the best”, there's not sufficient capital to equip and modernize the forces. He also states that Canada must ensure that the resources made available for defence match capabilities that the Canadian Forces are expected to provide.

So it's stated quite clearly there that you're lacking in funds to provide, and that comes right down to medical services as well. We see a lack there.

If we go back a little way, medical services to the families of CF people were provided by service people, were they not?

MGen Wendy Clay: They were provided only in certain isolated bases, such as Cold Lake, overseas in Germany, and at Goose Bay.

Mr. David Price: You've been cutting down in size because the forces have been cutting down in size. Has the possibility been looked at of going the other way—upgrading and making arrangements with provinces to take the families back into the fold, let's say? There seems to be such a big problem there between the service people getting their services on the base and the families off the base. It's such a mix-up. Of course, as a medical person, when you know the family history and are involved with the whole family, it makes it a lot easier in your work. Has any of that type of thing been looked at through your department?

MGen Wendy Clay: From the purely professional point of view, I would agree with you. It would be ideal if we were able to provide whole-family support. But one of the pressures we have on us with the downsizing in the military and the emphasis on the sharp end I alluded to earlier—this is something General Baril will have to speak to—is the numbers of our military personnel. Right at the moment, as you've heard, where perhaps there are complaints about the level of care we're providing to our service members themselves, we really do not have the capability, with our current numbers, to be able to take on the families.

Mr. David Price: But again, if you had the families included in the fold, you could afford to, let's say— but of course the dollars would have to come from somewhere.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: From a leadership point of view, I think you're talking about the ideal situation. I lived it with my family for two years in Germany, where we had the complete service, but even then we had to go to the German side for some of the services the Canadian Forces could not provide. But it has not been the intention in Canada to never do that, because we have very good medical service all across Canada.

What I would like to state is I think it's my responsibility, and the responsibility of the forces, to ensure that all families that serve the country all across the nation, wherever they are, are guaranteed access to the same quality of service, whether they are in Goose Bay, Halifax, Montreal, or the west. I want to be given the resources to be able to do that. If I have people serving in Winnipeg and there is not the right service in Winnipeg, I must be allowed to spend the money on the family.

It's not a matter of having the resources or not to spend on the families; I'm not allowed to do it. That's the rule of Treasury Board.

Mr. David Price: One of the other things we hear is the medical service offered to soldiers when they're deployed is so different from what's offered to them on base. They seem to get much better medical service when they're actually in the theatre than on base.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: It's certainly the perception of the soldiers if they say so. I would have to ask the doctor, but when we have people serving in Ottawa we use the civilian hospital facility. It's the same in Quebec and the other big centres, because that was a choice we made. It's somewhat difficult to justify spending Canadian dollars on medical services that are available across the street. Here we have three hospitals right beside NDMC.

• 1640

I just want to assure you that with the medical services we're buying downtown, across Canada, for our soldiers—there's only one standard. It doesn't matter who you are. You're taken in by the medical authority of the hospital where we buy services and treated according to what is wrong with you. You're put into a room according to what we pay. I am given some pretty straight instructions that we will pay the same for everyone. It doesn't matter if you're a general or a private. You'll get the same access as any member of the civil service who has insurance and access to a semi-private room. Well, my soldiers cannot pay for that, and I cannot pay the $1, but I'll pay the bill anyway.

Mr. David Price: But we're hearing that the service on the base itself is substandard.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Let me just mention that some of the services on the bases have been reduced. Valcartier had a regional hospital and so did Halifax. They reduced the services they had, and the number of beds and specialists, because they were downtown. Those hospitals take care of our people who are living in the community. Therefore, from a business point of view—I hate the word—we can buy the service locally. That's what the purpose is.

But I have to rely on my medical staff here to make sure we buy the best service there is, and if the community cannot buy the service, we have to import it. As I was trying to say, that applies not only to the serving people but their families too.

Mr. David Price: Can it be looked at the other way too? If you are in a particular area like Cold Lake, where there isn't a hospital locally, could you sell the service back to the community? The community could come in to therefore stabilize the hospital situation on the base.

MGen Wendy Clay: Yes. In fact we have looked at that, and we have specialists who go up to Cold Lake on a regular basis. Our surgeon currently in Edmonton, for example, goes to Cold Lake—I'm not sure quite how often—about twice a month. He goes for two or three days and holds clinics where he sees the civilian population, including the dependants. So where we do have the specialists, we are attempting to provide that service.

The other thing I'd just like to add is that if the members of the committee are aware of specific complaints from the bases with respect to medical care, I would like to hear about them. One of the things that very much concerns me is hearing reports of insensitive physicians, a non-caring attitude, failure to diagnose properly, or whatever. Professional courtesy and compassion don't cost a cent in this day and age. They're values we're trying to inculcate in our medical training. We're not always successful, obviously, but it's something that concerns me very much.

Mr. David Price: I think you'd see that if you looked at the notes from our travels. We have heard this quite a bit.

You have been working with bringing the community in, so there is a dialogue open there. There is the possibility of it going the other way too, as far as consolidating your efforts and getting medical service on the outside, or on the inside—one way or the other—in places where the numbers work better. For instance, obviously there are a lot of medical facilities in Edmonton, so something could be worked out so the military people would also use outside services completely or—

MGen Wendy Clay: I would suggest the line between military and civilian will become perhaps less distinct as time goes on, because we are being forced to develop a much closer relationship with the civilian community. Where we have physician specialists, for example, who are working in civilian facilities, they will be seeing civilian patients as well, which will include the families. It will become a much more blurred distinction with more partnerships. We're certainly open to investigating areas like that, but this is still a very new phenomenon we're developing.

Mr. David Price: —

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]— open negotiations.

MGen Wendy Clay: Other than at Edmonton and Cold Lake, which is probably the furthest advanced.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Price.

Colleagues, we'll now go to the five-minute round. I'll start with Mr. Benoit, but before I do I want to remind you that we go until 5.15 this evening and not until 5.30, because of the vote.

Mr. Benoit, five minutes, and I'll be watching very carefully.

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

• 1645

Once again, I'd like to get to some questions on the auditor general's report, but I'd like to start by referring to something Mr. Wood said here. He's asking if we have the power to change things in Veteran Affairs.

It seems to me that, too often, Liberals tend to forget that it's their government that in fact has the power. It's their government that made the choice to lower the total defence budget to $9.3 billion from $12.5 billion in 1992, when I started looking at this in a serious way. So let's not forget who does have the power.

That leads me to a comment just before I get to the auditor general's report. General Baril, you made a comment something like how DND should serve us, not the other way around. I think you're expressing frustration with the civil service getting involved in military decisions. Is that what you were saying by that? It was a comment you threw in after—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No, not at all. That's not what I meant at all.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What were you saying?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: We're a part of DND. Within DND and the Canadian Forces, it's all the same. We also have a pretty big bureaucracy to take care of 60,000 regulars and 20,000 civilians. We're slow and cumbersome. We have improved, but we have to change it.

I see too often where the rules are applied by what I call cold-hearted bureaucrats. Actually, we need them, because somebody has to apply a standard across the forces. But then there has to be compassion and leadership after the rules have been applied. We have to see the impact it has on the human beings we're dealing with. So it doesn't bother me too much as long as the bureaucrat doesn't have the final word.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you see just as much of a problem inside the Canadian Forces itself, inside the military branch, let's say, as you do—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No. What I'm trying to say I guess is that in any big bureaucracy, there is bureaucracy.

We have one that's improving a lot. It has been reduced and re-engineered. Our rules and regulations are reviewed, changed, simplified, or thrown out of the window. We're getting to be a lot better than we were before.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I hope that's the case. I'm not entirely convinced.

On the auditor general's report, there are some pretty serious statements made by the auditor general, starting with a focus on capital equipment for front-line troops and that spending has gone down by 20% to 14%, depending on where you're looking. Therefore, troops are getting less new equipment now—that's the comment—when the new equipment is needed most.

I think we heard that several times, but look at what happened in Croatia and the poor equipment there. I questioned Colonel Calvin on that yesterday. He didn't really give an answer, but he certainly wouldn't say that the equipment is any better now. Had he felt more comfortable expressing his opinion, he would have said that the equipment certainly hasn't gotten any better in the past four years, which is a pretty serious indictment, I think. There's the fact that things haven't improved when there was such a need known and expressed four years ago for people who are literally on the front lines.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: If I may, I wouldn't like to get involved in the auditor general's report that just came out today. I haven't had access to it yet, or I didn't take the time to look it, so it would not be fair to comment on some of the parts that are being picked out. But I'm pretty sure our minister is going to talk about it the next time, Mr. Chairman, you want to talk about it.

As for the improvement of the equipment we have, I agree with you that we don't have the best equipment in the world, but most of it has been upgraded with added armour that we put on, and there's better gun protection, better ammunition, and better training. There's better protection for the people we have. It certainly has improved. If Jim Calvin didn't criticize the equipment, it's because he didn't feel he had to. I've known him for a long time, and you would have gotten it as it is. That's the way he is.

We have new equipment that is in or coming in. Acquiring a major equipment system is a pretty long haul. I'm not saying it's a pretty long haul because it's expensive. We've got probably the best reconnaissance vehicle, which we're going to introduce in the theatre as soon as we have it operationally ready with all the spare parts. It should be going in not for the next rotation, but the next one. APCs are coming off the assembly line, and they're going to go into operation. All the vehicles we are going to keep are going to be upgraded. I'm talking only of the ones in peacekeeping operations. We have changed a lot, from the helmet down.

• 1650

The Chairman: Your five minutes are up, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Pratt.

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

Generals, one of the things we heard yesterday from Colonel Calvin, when he was speaking about the Medak pocket operation, was what a great sense of security and comfort the soldiers felt knowing there was a French mobile surgical unit behind the lines to assist them if they had any wounded.

In your presentation, General Clay, you talked about what the Canadian Forces couldn't do in terms of the white paper. What I'm interested in, I suppose, is what they can do, if we ever faced another situation like the Medak pocket, or I guess what is described as a mid-intensity to high-intensity operation. How many medical surgical mobile units are we able to put in the field in support of a battalion or brigade in terms of serving those soldiers in a fairly critical situation?

MGen Wendy Clay: We could field at any one time, I would say, three advanced surgical centres with approximately 30 to 40 personnel, depending on the number of beds, sir. We could maintain two, I would suggest, for a long period of time.

What we are working toward, as I suggested, is this 100-bed field hospital with some additional surgical centres that would be either part of the field hospital or in addition to it. This will not allow us to support a mid-intensity combat operation. For that we would need a 400-bed field hospital. What we are working to support now are operations other than war, the peacekeeping operations.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: If I may, because you've made an interesting comment, they felt very safe because there was a French surgical team, because that's the way it was meant to be. It didn't happen by accident. That unit was deployed, knowing there was a French medical facility.

We have troops in Africa now with a French facility again, tops in the world, including Medevac right out to Europe, if we have to. Our troops in Kuwait don't have an advanced surgical capability because the Americans are providing it right there. But I will never allow my troops, our troops, to be deployed without a proper medical facility. This is a show stopper, if we don't have it.

Mr. David Pratt: Does that in fact mean our troops would not be deployed? Clearly—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: We have it available to a certain limit—

Mr. David Pratt: To a certain extent. That's what I'm trying to get at here, that we're limited in terms of what's available. We're limited, in terms of what we can do in the field, by what resources we have with respect to medical services.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Not necessarily. We're given the task to be able to deploy a brigade group and we have the medical facilities to deploy that anywhere in the world.

Mr. David Pratt: Is that in a high-intensity combat situation?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: We're saying in a mid-intensity situation.

Mr. David Pratt: Okay. But I think we heard pretty clearly yesterday that what started out as probably a fairly low-intensity operation, when the Canadians were required by the UN commander— they went in and it quickly became, for them at least— I don't know what the classification is, whether that's mid-intensity or high-intensity. I would certainly describe it as high-intensity, myself.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Let me tell you, it was mid-intensity. But when the bullets are flying around your head you really don't care what it is. For you, it's any intensity that is available. As a clear definition, these are typically mid-intensity combats.

MGen Wendy Clay: I would add that the other point is we don't have to provide all the medical care ourselves. We do work very closely with our NATO allies. I know there have been reports of the use of German hospitals, for example, British and U.K., and we're working to ensure interoperability of standards, procedures, and equipment. So I personally have a great deal of confidence in the care that is provided by medical teams from other countries.

• 1655

Mr. David Pratt: I would probably share your confidence in the level of service provided by these other countries, but should it not be a fairly fundamental principle that Canadians in a theatre of operations, when they're wounded, are looked after by Canadians? Shouldn't that be the guiding principle?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Certainly, but most of the time it's not personal. A lot of times our troops would be supported by artillery coming from somewhere else. Our troops in Drvar, since last Thursday, have been supported by the French, American, and British with helicopters and a British Warrior company trained in riot control. That's the way it works in coalition warfare. We don't go it alone; we help the others, and they do it for us. I've been treated in operations a few times for injuries, never by Canadians.

Mr. David Pratt: Consider this. I think artillery support, air support, and naval support, those sorts of things, are different from care of the wounded. If you are lying in a bed and you're wounded, being able to speak to someone from your own country is pretty critical, rather than, perhaps, someone having to interpret for a French or German doctor or whatever.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I certainly agree. Normally, it is only temporary that you will stage into the medical facility. Eventually, you will get into the evacuation line that will bring you back to your unit or bring you home; then you'll come under our control. But we are sharing medical capability all the time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Is that five minutes?

The Chairman: Actually, it's over six.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Guys, we have a generous chairman.

General Baril, General Clay and— Chief, it is nice to see you being recognized here. Everyone got you up to General rank, and I know you are so proud to be the chief warrant officer of the armed forces. It is nice to see you here as well.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Do you see the gold—

Mr. John Richardson: I see that, yes. He wears it proudly and it looks good on him.

I want to thank you for coming and being so frank, General, as you always are when we have you before the committee. I want to tell you, though, that going across the country and seeing what's happening in the form of change, what we're seeing is a 1945-1954 plant in reality, except at Namao where what you were seeing was a really nice plant. I think the next best we saw was Valcartier, which was really planned as a brigade-type accommodation, and it shows.

The navy was in bad shape in Esquimalt because of the numbers. When they moved the navy to an almost 50-50 arrangement, there wasn't accommodation totally for them, although they took over the old barracks that the Patricias and Queen's Own Rifles had once occupied at one point. We do see the deterioration, and I'm sure that happens to all kinds of buildings. It's something that has to be caught up, and we may have to address that.

One thing we do hear from the people— When the young soldiers, airmen, and seamen get up to speak, we hear them talking about things that aren't addressed. They're not addressed because they probably— They know there's a social worker on base, but they probably would like to talk to— What we used to have is a platoon commander's hour once a week. How many guys I got out of debt, how many guys I had to get away from the altar when they weren't ready, and how many guys I had to keep out of jail—those guys still write to you. They remember you and they thank you for it, and they take the time to listen. Those problems got solved at the very bottom level. They didn't get cranked up before there was a crisis or some psychological disorder or stress on them, because those guys gave you a lot of stress.

The army of today is more sanitized. So is the navy and the air force. The type of people they bring in are screened much finer than the ones were in my time. I think I had a full platoon in those days with 39 people. I think 27 were referred from the magistrate's court: “Either join the army or you're in jail for 30 or 60 days.” They were damned fine soldiers and they appreciated you looking after their debts and the other problems they got into. I'm not sure they were as well trained as the soldiers are today, nor did they have anywhere near the kind of equipment. I do know they did have access on a regular basis to their platoon commander or their platoon sergeants. I can only speak for the infantry. I know that was part of our job. You did get to know your people well and you knew you could discipline fairly and they'd never get upset with you.

• 1700

I feel now that because they know so much and have a broader sense of awareness, going up the ladder they compare, and they feel they have the right to speak without solving things at the lower level.

I don't know if we can ever go backwards, and I don't wish to see the forces go backwards; I'm very proud of what's happened. I know people talk about equipment, but I've never seen too many armies better equipped than the army is right now, if we get the complete buys that are in place.

I think our soldiers are proud. They look proud; they carry themselves well. As a matter of fact, they're almost as proud as the fellow next to me I'm so proud to know. I think we're trying to do our best for them. We are very reactive to what we hear, because we take the notes back. I know your background; I know the kind of soldier you were. You're also sensitive to those kinds of needs at the lower level.

I don't know when we'll get the money to bring up the distaff part of the stats, the PMQs, etc., but certainly when I saw the barracks for single quarters at Petawawa—you don't want to tell me the Americans are better off than those guys are. That was a very impressive set-up, their eating facilities, etc. I don't know where you're going to get much better than that. I think at some stage they should be taken from one base to another and shown what it's like, because they were living in what I thought was a first class situation.

There were some spots on Petawawa— I mean, it wasn't the Petawawa I knew when I was young. I didn't see too many white buildings around. I saw new, state-of-the-art buildings for the people operating. The only people living in the poor buildings were the brigade headquarters.

I just wanted you to know that everything wasn't bad out there. The infrastructure is in tough shape, and that's something we're going to have to address.

I want to tell you that I think we may have cut too hard on the career manager staff, because if what they were saying to us when we asked—the career managers and the kinds of answers they were getting. They were rude put-downs, you know, “Take it; you joined the forces, you joined the navy, you joined the air force; this is where you're going”.

We're not dreaming this up. These kinds of notes did come out. I mentioned it to General Dallaire at the time because I felt he should know. For a person knowing he's coming up for a posting and wants a posting to get an answer like that— The career managers I knew listened to you and tried to accommodate you where possible.

I know I'm kind of giving you a bit of a lecture here, but I'm just telling you I'm proud of 99% of the stuff I see. It's the small things that shock you sometimes.

I just want to say keep up the good work.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Richardson.

Monsieur Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Like you, I have not read the Auditor General's Report, General Baril, but I am concerned after hearing the comments made by my two colleagues. I'm wondering whether in recent years too much emphasis may have been placed on expenditures for military equipment, training and a host of other items, while human resources were rather neglected. Perhaps once we stop buying trucks, submarines and new planes and helicopters, we will finally turn our attention to human resources.

I am concerned about the comments made in the Auditor General's report and I'm afraid that, once again, the members of the military are being passed over. How will you better appropriate your resources and distribute them among equipment, training and the human needs of our army, which, in my view, are becoming urgent?

• 1705

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Thank you for your comments. I have a great deal of confidence in my country. I believe Canada will look after the men and women that have served it for so long.

We must remember that until 1995-96 all salaries were frozen throughout Canada. All Canadians were enduring the same hardships. We started things up again and we are considering looking after our people again. However, in order to succeed, we must have a very solid basis to deal with the problem. For some years, we were poking about at the problem. However, it is time to really go ahead and do something. I think you are going to give us the authority to do that, you will give us a solid basis and help us get national recognition.

The groups you've heard from yesterday told you that they were disgusted not to have national recognition. They went into the service and risked their lives, but they get no national recognition. I agree that they want better pay and homes, but they also want recognition from Canada. I need a solid basis in order to pay their salaries, provide them with benefits, look after their families, assist them with housing, and take care of those who were killed and injured and of our veterans.

I must have a solid basis, and there must be some relaxation of the regulations and changes made to the taxation rules. It will obviously cost quite a bit to look after 60,000 members of the regular forces and 30,000 members of the reserves. However, If I am given the resources, I will give you operational forces.

If we don't look after the essential component of the Canadian Armed Forces, in future, I will not be able to maintain operational competence and capacity. I am told that both are questioned in the Auditor General's report, which I have not studied in detail.

To date, this has proven to be an extremely difficult balancing act. I am trying to plug 15 holes at one time, but I only have 10 fingers. The committee or the government will have to give me a situation with only 10 holes to plug, and stop the leaks that are happening everywhere at the moment. It's very difficult to get the resources required to take care of people. And my objective remains the defence of our country.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: As you know, General Baril, human issues are not the only problem in your army at the moment. We are told that the soldier in Trenton has been waiting for a pair of boots for eight months, while another has been waiting for his pants to arrive in Alert for several months. We are not making this up. I jokingly told the soldier that he should have gone into the RCMP, because, according to the Auditor General once again, it has a surplus of 4,000 hats on its shelves. This proves that there is something wrong in areas other than just human resources.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: We hear all kinds of stories all the time. As soon as we move something, we make waves. We have just changed the uniforms that our regular reserve members are entitled to wear all the time, that is the combat uniform. There was a temporary imbalance when we asked a number of military personnel to turn in their combat uniforms, which are an item of operational equipment to which they were not entitled, but which they were pleased to have. We had to redistribute these uniforms, because we did not have enough of them, some were used, and the demand was too great. Clearly, we are talking about a huge machine. Contracts were given out, and procedures are now in place to deal with this problem.

The gentleman in Trenton who has been waiting for his boots for eight months must have big feet or else is very patient. There is something wrong somewhere in our organization if a guy cannot get boots in eight months and has to go and tell the SCONDVA that he needs boots. There must a rather dramatic lack of confidence in the chain of command.

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

[English]

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you again, Mr. Chair. So many questions, so little time.

I want to get back to the auditor general's report. I know you don't yet know entirely what's in it, but just before that I'd like to ask you a question about the committee meeting yesterday. It has to do with what happened in Croatia about four and a half years ago.

General Leach put in a very strong recommendation that there be a new unit award or unit honour of some kind, and yet that hasn't happened. Is it because it was considered to be a mid-intensity situation—I think that's the terminology you used—rather than a high-intensity situation. Is that the reason nothing's happened?

• 1710

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No, absolutely not.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It hasn't been earned?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No, absolutely not.

May I give you a little background for a few minutes?

In that action in 1993, a Canadian unit held its own with a Croatian unit, and it was felt, probably by the leadership at that time—I was not in Canada—that giving a battle honour recognizing a Canadian unit that had kind of beaten one of the belligerents in their own country when we still had Canadians in that country—and by the way, we still have Canadians in that country—might not have been perceived well by the folks up there, and especially by the general who was in the Mexican standoff and would have heard that our unit was recognized nationally for having beaten him while he was still within range of his artillery. It was not very wise to do it at that time.

Having said that, the action is finished. We're still involved with the Croats, in both Bosnia and Zagreb. We were there last Thursday and Friday and had some pretty close calls and exchanges of fire. On Saturday evening, one of my soldiers coming back from Zagreb was fired at point-blank, right through his windshield, in Croatia. We're still involved there.

The proposal by the commander of the army was initiated by me, actually, because I thought we should recognize the action in the new type of conflict we were involved in with something beyond normal recognition, a battle honour, a citation like the presidential citation or a CDS citation.

The recommendation of the commander of the army has not been approved by the awards and decorations committee, but I initiated that thing when I was there, and I rarely change my mind when I change seats. Now that committee is answering to me, so I'll find out why they said no.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Quickly? Soon?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I normally react very quickly. I'm infantry and I don't have very much patience.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'll be looking for that.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Very well.

Mr. John Richardson: Is that a threat?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Leon Benoit: It's a promise.

With respect to the auditor general's report, one of the things said was that often equipment is bought and paid for before it is even tested, so there are very high costs in dealing with equipment that's no good. We certainly had people express that. For example, they said the Bombardier equipment they received, the personal vehicles—the smaller vehicles they just drive around in that look much like cars or trucks—was junk. They referred to some of the Fiats as junk that should never have been purchased, and nobody can understand why they were. That was one of the concerns.

The government plans to re-equip the forces, but they need $11 billion to do what they say they want to do and they only have $6.5 billion projected. They're really concerned with extremely long delays.

And then they say one more thing I'm going to refer to here. They say the government has no plan for how it allocates its defence dollars. Instead of using policy or research, they allocate spending based on gut feeling.

It must be frustrating for you, General, when a government chooses equipment in that way. It has to be frustrating. This comes back even to personal combat clothing.

The Chairman: Quickly, please.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You know what's been going on with the clothing. We hear again and again that it's still a major problem.

I brought it up in December. General Leach said in December, when appearing before this very committee, that despite Canada's climatic extremes we still haven't found money to put our soldiers in state-of-the-art clothing. He also said that in Bosnia he's seen soldiers wearing boots that were bought at hunting goods stores because they just couldn't get them through the military.

This problem is mentioned right up until the March edition of the Canadian Forces newspaper, The Maple Leaf, which says there's a serious problem in clothing supplies. Briefing notes we've obtained from CFB Petawawa show that there's a grave concern on the part of the troops about clothing.

So even the very basic issue of personal combat clothing and combat kit just hasn't been dealt with. It's been two years since that emergency Clothe-The-Soldier program was put in place. I think $500 million was allocated. And four and a half years since—

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit, for that very short question.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

• 1715

Mr. Bob Wood: I have a quick question. I wasn't going to say anything about this, but I'll probably never get a chance, General, to express my displeasure on this particular subject in front of you again. I want to tell you how I feel about career managers and the complaints we have heard since we started this exercise back in January. I would reiterate what Mr. Richardson said, that these people have to be the most callous, insensitive people I have ever heard about.

I'll give you an example of a lady in my riding, at CFB North Bay, who has gone through all the process, has been recommended for a compassionate posting by the social workers at the base, by the COs, and by the padres. Everything goes in, and it comes back—and I know the name of this lady who's the career manager—with denial, no explanation, no nothing. When I went to the CO, he had to phone and try to get the reason why she was denied, and in my mind, there's no reason why she was denied.

What I'm looking at for you, General—this is just a suggestion—is that I think you and General Dallaire should get these career managers into an office room somewhere and give them one of your famous “Listen up, Sparky” speeches so that they know and can understand what's going on. It's time for those people to “Listen up, Sparky” and do it.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I'm certainly willing to talk to all of them, but I don't think you're right by saying all career managers are callous. I don't think it's appropriate to—

Mr. Bob Wood: I hope I'm not, but—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: But you said that all of them are callous.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, I'm beginning to think they all are.

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Based on a few examples or maybe many examples— We have gone through slimming of I don't know how many thousand. We reduced the force by 14,000. We lost a lot of experts. We're doing what we were trying to do before, and I think I'm at the point now where we have to change where we did it. It was unilaterally cut by 50% all over the place, including the career managers.

We probably reduced too much. We have people who are overloaded or they are the wrong people. But what we have are people who are coming from the field and are going in there. I'm pretty sure we have abusers, as in every organization, but I see some pretty good stuff being done by that bunch, and some bad ones.

Mr. Bob Wood: I hope you're right, but we've never heard about it. Coming from the field and going in there, what kind of training do they have to deal with people? Do they go through a training process here? It doesn't seem like it when the problem keeps coming up all the time about career managers and their insensitivity. Do they just pop in and do the job and then go somewhere else?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: No. Maybe I could ask the chief petty officer to talk about the career manager system we have. It's fairly elaborate. We just can't put the blame on an NCO or a young officer who is there. Career manager responsibilities are from me all the way down. We manage the careers of men and women who are serving, all the time.

I'm pretty sure there are quite a few postings that are not very happy, but the bottom line eventually is that the forces have to prevail.

We're talking here about a real compassionate point that has been turned down. It bothered the hell out of me when it happened.

Mr. Bob Wood: We hear this a lot, though. It's not so much that they're doing a bad job; it's their insensitivity that I think is what really irritates people, like “Take it or leave it”, that type of thing; denied and no explanation. The lady might have a great explanation as to why she denied it, but if you want to be abrupt and say, hey, take it or leave it—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I agree there is a better way of doing it.

Chief Petty Officer Terry Meloche (Department of National Defence): Mr. Wood, in defence of the career managers, they're probably the most hard-working group. It has traditionally been difficult to get people to come here to career management. Once they're here, with the hours they put in, if they come here with brown hair, they leave with grey hair.

• 1720

I'm telling you right now, I walk to work before 7 a.m., and I see career managers going to work. I don't leave until after 6 p.m., and they're still there. I can call them on Friday afternoon and know they're there.

Maybe it's one of the things you're hearing. When I hear some of the issues that have been brought up, it sounds as though you must be listening to my voice mail.

I've been doing this job for three years, and I did the job for two years in the fleet. This is my whole life. I remember when quality of issues came to the forefront as the new buzzword. Well, this is how I've fed my family all these years. These are the things we've been doing.

Are we doing them right? That's what this committee here—

I don't believe the career manager has the authority to say no, as was just expressed here. That has to come from somewhere a little higher up. I know what you may have heard—

Mr. Bob Wood: Oh, I have the paper, and I have the lady's name. It says no; denial.

CPO Terry Meloche: I don't think a sergeant can say no. I think it has to come from a little higher than that, in that instance.

I'm being a little blind-sided here, not having the file.

Mr. Bob Wood: No, I know. I was using it as an example.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood. Very good question.

Mr. Pratt.

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

General Baril, I go back to the comment you made with respect to “leaving no spreadsheet in the department untouched” in terms of dealing with the quality of life issues. I certainly take you at your word with regard to making that happen, but I guess one of the things we've heard about over the last number of years is that these things tend to go in cycles. We're hearing about quality of life now because the minister has asked us to deal with this. We've certainly heard a tremendous amount of testimony over the course of the last few months.

If the quality of life issues are attended to the way they should be, then perhaps what's going to suffer are operating and maintenance budgets in terms of equipment, or the facility infrastructure the forces have, and maintenance on that. We've heard from some other senior members of the forces that when it comes to the bottom line on this, when this committee issues its report and all the recommendations are lined up and have to be prioritized, there's going to have to be more money put into the budget to ensure that our army, our air force, and our navy are capable of doing the things we've asked them to do at home and abroad.

Would you agree with that observation?

Gen J.M.G. Baril: But certainly if we make a major change to the quality of life for our people it has a cost to it. I certainly do hope the money or the resources required to take care of our people is added to the base fund, to the cost of the people we have, just as a raise in salary should be coming from central.

I do have great confidence that it will come from central. Otherwise, the option you've mentioned will have to be looked at.

Mr. David Pratt: In terms of sticking fingers in various dikes just to try to keep the—

Gen J.M.G. Baril: Well, trying to stretch every Canadian dollar that is given to us. That's what we're trying to do. We're trying to make the money go as far as it can.

From where I stand now, I'm not willing to compromise the quality of life of the men and women who are serving.

Mr. David Pratt: Do I have more time, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. David Pratt: The other issue I'd like to get at relates to your comments, General Baril, in terms of the statement you make on the last page of your presentation, that “The only challenge is to make the Canadian public aware of the military's needs”.

Going back to yesterday's testimony from Colonel Calvin, it seemed on the face of it, to someone like me, a lay person as far as military issues go, that the military really did a God-awful job in terms of getting the message out about that story in the Medak pocket and the tremendous work done there.

It seems to me that if you want to build public support for the military in terms of the job they have to do and the important role they have, you have to be in a position to tell those stories on a timely basis, not several years after the fact, as has occurred here.

Would you concede that the military has not done a very good job of telling its story—and I know the Somalia issue comes into this, obviously—on the whole?

• 1725

Gen J.M.G. Baril: I think you just said it; this action happened right in the wake of Somalia, when members of the Canadian Forces were trying to find out where they were going.

We were pretty gun-shy for many years, but I think we're coming out of that cloud, and coming out pretty strong, actually. You have seen the military out because we were called, but you have seen us out. We're not shy. We're not ashamed. We're pretty proud of coming out in whichever way the Canadian population wants to see us—how we fight, how we train, how we have fun. We're available. You'll see them much more this summer, again, in many forms across the nation. So we are coming out.

It is unfortunate that those events could not be valued or recognized at that time, but the book is not closed yet. Hopefully, for any other ones that happen it will not take so long to recognize. I'm still giving medals for Somalia.

Mr. David Pratt: That's it for me, thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pratt.

I guess this will be it for today's session, General. I know you're coming back.

If any of you have other questions, I know the general will be back with us on Thursday morning, so you can keep your questions for then. I'm sure he will be very happy to answer them.

Again, I would like to thank the three of you for coming this afternoon.

The meeting is adjourned.