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]

Friday, May 8, 1998

• 0727

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's nice to see you this morning. It seems that we just left this place a couple of hours ago.

Just to repeat a few housekeeping announcements, anybody who wants a translating device can get them over here.

[Translation]

For those who wish to speak in French, that's not a problem. You may express yourselves in the language of your choice.

[English]

As I have mentioned before, our committee is an all-party committee. One of the MPs is George Proud, who represents the riding of Hillsborough in P.E.I. He was supposed to be here this morning, but due to other circumstances he cannot attend. Mr. Proud is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and he really wanted to be here this morning.

We will start by asking the MPs sitting in front to identify themselves so that you will know them.

[Translation]

I usually begin the meeting by asking all the members to introduce themselves. We'll begin with Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Good morning. My name is Ghislain Lebel and I am the member for Chambly, on Montreal's south shore, in Quebec.

[English]

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Good morning. My name is David Price. I'm the member of Parliament for Compton—Stanstead and I'm the defence critic for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Good morning. I'm Leon Benoit, the member of Parliament for Lakeland, Alberta. The Cold Lake air base is in my constituency and I'm the Reform Party deputy defence critic.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): I'm Art Hanger, the defence critic for the Reform Party, and my riding is Calgary Northeast.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): I'm Hector Clouthier, Liberal member of Parliament for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. CFB Petawawa is in my riding.

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

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): I'm Wendy Lill, the New Democratic Party replacement for Chris Axworthy, our defence critic. I'm here today because Dartmouth is my riding and I want to hear the people in my riding.

• 0730

The Chairman: My name is Robert Bertrand. My riding is Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle in Quebec and I chair this standing committee.

We will go right now with our first witness, Rear Admiral Dusty Miller.

Rear Admiral Dusty Miller (Individual Presentation): Thank you, sir. I'm delighted to see you again. I met you yesterday and I'd like to put what I said to you then in a more formal context.

I'll stick to my script. I've provided a translation to the translator, but I'll flop from English to French, if you don't mind.

[Translation]

I am pleased to be able to speak to you today. I intend to talk about three issues I consider key to the quality of life of our military people, both regular and reserve force. The issues are: pay and compensation, housing and operational tempo.

[English]

Three subjects—pay, housing and the operational tempo of my people.

Before I explore these issues with you, however, I'd like to take a moment to highlight the initiatives we have sponsored to try to help the soldiers, sailors and air force personnel in my formation stretch their limited pay cheques as far as they can. Here are some examples of what we can and have done in Maritime Forces Atlantic.

We've established an on-site day care centre that will be particularly sensitive to the needs of single parents. It opens on the base June 1. With non-public funds—that's our own money—we've built 25 cabins on a lake 90 minutes from Halifax for our people to take their families on much-needed vacations. The rates charged for the cabins are offered on a graduated scale, geared to income, to make them as affordable as possible to all. We've arranged for reduced-price tickets for major entertainment and sporting events, in concert with our great businesses downtown in this region. We've negotiated discounts with local merchants and continue to do so. We've found funding to build a new dockyard gym and an improved community centre. We've made the military family resource centre services more accessible through the establishment of satellite offices throughout the region. And we've created a spousal employment program that has found more than 140 jobs for spouses, and is expected to serve as a national model for the forces.

[Translation]

Locally, we are committed to pursuing every opportunity to improve the quality of life of our people. While I am proud of what we have accomplished, I am saddened to say that it is just not enough. We need your help in addressing the issues of pay, housing and workload.

[English]

I know you have already heard a lot on the subject of pay and compensation. Indeed, a compelling case can be made to show that today's sailor makes far less than a market value wage for the hours he or she puts in, and the conditions under which he or she works. Consider that our sailors are often required to work in confined spaces with little privacy 16 hours a day, 7 days a week, at sea in the unforgiving North Atlantic, where the consequences of individual error can jeopardize the lives of one's shipmates. We ask an awful lot, and that's just in peacetime.

When you consider these conditions and the acknowledged fact that our sailors earn less than their counterparts in the public service, it's clear that our people are not being fairly compensated for the challenges they face. This is particularly true among our most junior ranks—ordinary seamen and sub-lieutenants—who struggle daily to raise families on salaries that permit very few luxuries.

Let's go to housing. The main issue with respect to housing in the Halifax region is quality. I think you've already heard and you're going to hear much more about this from our sailors. The reality is that there is little money to renovate the tired post-war buildings on Canadian Forces bases in which many of our members live. While some in the public may cling to a perception that our sailors live in subsidized housing, the truth is that Treasury Board has directed that Canadian Forces members pay fair market value for their accommodation. Of course that is not the case in all areas where the navy is stationed, as you saw in Esquimalt, where the high cost of housing is also a problem.

• 0735

Given that our sailors' salaries are the same on both coasts, I believe you must consider a method of ensuring all Canadian Forces members have access to a common standard of adequate housing, regardless of where they are stationed in Canada. That's the challenge.

Of the three issues I have mentioned, operational tempo certainly shares the spotlight with pay and housing in the way it impacts on morale and how people feel about what they do. But it's also the most complex. Operational tempo is a delicate balance of a number of factors. There must be a time a ship is available for operations and time devoted to maintenance and repair, time for ships' companies to enhance their combat skills through training and exercises, and time to apply those skills in the accomplishment of assigned mission. Finally, there must be an appropriate amount of time devoted to the service of our country, and time dedicated to our families and ourselves.

[Translation]

Striking this delicate balance is key to our operational effectiveness, and the morale of my sailors. But as critical as this balance is, a number of external factors continue to make it an elusive goal.

[English]

The most significant impediment to attaining this balance has been the ongoing reductions to both our personnel and budgets over recent years. In the past two years alone Maritime Forces Atlantic has had to cope with the loss of over 1,000 people and almost 10% of our work force due to downsizing, and $48 million or 25% of our budget—and we're not a big navy.

This might be manageable were it not for the fact that I believe we are busier now than we have ever been. This is causing considerable stress for some of our people. My staff are working hard to find a better balance. As an example, we have reduced the sailing schedule for HMCS Toronto upon their return—and we don't yet know when that's going to be—from their unforeseen duty in the Persian Gulf. The problem is that the duties we took away from Toronto must now be added to the schedule of other already-busy ships. We are robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Since my arrival I've been trying to develop an atmosphere of relaxed professionalism, and to slow the pace down a touch. Quite frankly, to date I have been rather unsuccessful. Despite some of our recent initiatives, we are still having to do more with less, due to a combination of increased real-world operations and reduced budgets. Our ships are always in great demand for missions that are vital to Canada's security interests, from operations in the Persian Gulf and off the former Yugoslavia with the NATO fleet, to fisheries and sovereignty patrols, to representing Canada from Haiti, South Africa to northern Norway. The consequences of this have been longer separations from family, additional stress, and an erosion of the satisfaction that has been associated with military life.

[Translation]

In recent years, the situation ashore has come to parallel the pace of activity at sea. A posting ashore once represented an opportunity to escape from 16-hour working days at sea to a more normal workaday environment.

[English]

The reality is that we are asking smaller staffs ashore to provide the same support that we have traditionally provided our ships at sea. People are working longer hours—and I would remind you that we don't get paid overtime—with the obvious negative effects on our families that you might expect.

• 0740

I'm allowed five minutes. Ladies and gentlemen, given the unique conditions of service life, let me summarize and say that I ask you today to help us give the dedicated men and women of our military family what they need above all else: a fair pay cheque, access to decent, affordable housing, and a tempo of operations that does not continue to routinely impose extraordinary demands on our people.

Thank you. Merci.

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup, Monsieur l'amiral.

Monsieur Pratt.

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

Over the course of our hearings, Admiral, we've heard, obviously, from a lot of people from coast to coast now on various issues affecting morale and quality of life in the Canadian Forces. One of the scenes we've heard—and I want to be clear about this; I don't direct these comments to you in particular, these are general comments—is that there has been a failure of leadership in the Canadian Forces in terms of some of the people in Ottawa who have failed to go to bat for the average soldier, sailor or airman in this country. We heard it from General Roméo Dallaire, who himself admitted that oftentimes when he had money in his budget to spend, if it was an operational requirement, the money would go to the operational requirement rather than something that might improve the quality of life of the soldier or sailor involved.

How do you respond to the general comment that the leadership in the Canadian Forces has not done all it could possibly do to go to bat for the average member of the forces?

RAdm Dusty Miller: It's very difficult to respond to that. I think there's a segment of truth in what General Dallaire has said. I think, over the last several years when we have been downsizing, we have been given less money and we've had to make some pretty tough decisions. Those decisions, for a military force, are to ensure that the operations we have to do and continue to do around the world, come first. I would like to think that my philosophy of relaxed professionalism would mean that, yes, they come first, but you can't forget everything else. You can't exclude all of the other demands that are put upon you in those circumstances—and that is the people. We have to keep reminding ourselves that the people make up the organization.

General Baril has been quite clear: we must take care of our people. In a way, over the past few years we have been sidetracked to ensure we exist as best we can, as one of the best militaries in the world—and one of the lowest paid, by the way—and doing what we need to do best for the Canadian people, so that when there is a disaster we are there, so that we don't expect extra compensation. But then all of a sudden we look around and see that we have done our bit for this country, we have helped the government reduce their deficit to zero, and we have done that a little bit on the backs of our people.

What I'm trying to do now in some of those initiatives I talked to you about is to reinstate this feeling, right from General Baril all the way up and down the organization, that each and every one of us has a responsibility to those who are working for us.

In the navy we have always had what is called a divisional system. When an ordinary seaman joins a ship he becomes a member of a division. It's a very small group. It's all of his same trade. And he has a supervisor who is tasked to look after that ordinary seaman. That supervisor has his supervisor, who is tasked to look after him and his career, his training, his needs and wants.

We've been overloading our people, I think, because of some of those subjects that I mentioned in my formal talk. We've been enacting a lot of them, and when you demand a lot of the system all the way up and down, something gives. I think the human aspect has been giving a little bit over the last four or five years, and we need to bring that back in. We're very conscious of that. There has to be a reinstatement of absolute confidence in the leadership.

We have some of, if not 99% of, the best leaders in this military I have ever seen in any military in the world, and I've sailed with over 30 navies. I know that we undermine ourselves in a way, and sometimes it's easier to criticize and pick on something than it is to say, my gosh, there's a really great organization out there. It has to be put into perspective. We're not stupid people. We're trying to do the best we can for our people.

• 0745

Mr. David Pratt: We've just been given a mug here and it has the coat of arms of the navy, and right at the bottom it says “Ready, aye, ready”.

Do you think there comes a time in an organization when the leadership of that organization is asked to do the same or more with less and less resources—and I'm thinking here of the Chief of the Defence Staff—when that leadership at some point has to finally say, look, we can't do what you want us to do with the resources you've given us. Do you think there comes a time when the CDS has to be more aggressive politically in terms of saying, look, we can't continue with this role you've given us? If you look at the white paper, for instance, there have to be some decisions made with respect to what we can and can't do with the resources we have.

RAdm Dusty Miller: I can't answer for the Chief of the Defence Staff, but let me try to answer that question in a couple of ways. The government is asking us to do something, and it is articulated very well in the white paper. It says to defend Canada and defend North America and, in concert with our allies, do what we can domestically and internationally to promote Canada and all that it stands for as a democratic nation. We do that very well.

In the navy—and I'd like to stick with the navy—one of my morale-boosting talks that I use for our sailors, and when I go to ships at sea, is to say that since the Gulf War we have introduced 28 brand-new ships, all Canadian designed, highly computerized and highly technical, into the Canadian navy. Can we do the jobs we are asked to do? You bet. Not only can we do them, we can do them better than ever before. We have probably the most capable navy sitting in this harbour that I have seen in my 33 years in the navy. Can we do those jobs? Yes. Is there a toll on doing those jobs? Yes. Do we need to slow it down a touch? Yes.

That's where I come in, and that's where I try to interpret all of those demands we have so that I can perhaps slow it down a little, so I can make a few lives better, and I'm going to do that while I'm here. Does there come a time when you are stuck with one rowboat and one paddler? Would I be that guy? Maybe. I love the navy, I really do. I love the people in it. It's one of the finest organizations I've ever come across, and I hope you saw some of that yesterday as you toured an old submarine, with sailors who are proud of that old submarine. We're delighted to be getting slightly used new ones.

There's a fine line between doing what you can do and being smart about going about getting the things you need to do it. Right now, our leadership is looking at how we maintain those things that we have to do, how we get those capabilities smarter. We get them by looking for a used submarine that's almost new, that will serve us well for the next thirty years. We do it by taking a look at other ways of doing business that might be cheaper at the moment. But we have to be careful how we go about that and how we affect the very loyal people who have worked for us over the years.

I would say we're in that “coming out of the transition” phase. The last few years have been very difficult. When we've gone through these budget cuts, I'd like it to stabilize. I think we are piecing it all together. We can do it, but what you're hearing is that there is a price to pay. There is a price in the stress and the well-being and the welfare of our people. Some of that isn't controlled locally. It is a national problem and you're seeing that right across this country.

That's why you're doing this. You're trying to get a feel for it by, yes, listening to individual, very awful stories. But hopefully you're putting it all together so that you can make recommendations as to how we make it better.

• 0750

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Good morning, Real Admiral. I'm pleased that you're here, because I wasn't totally available— I don't know how much you participated in the trip on the ship there, but I missed part of that. So I'm glad you're here this morning.

Let me turn to the budget. I'm not sure if I picked up the percentage of the decrease in the budget. Did you say it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of a 45% decrease?

RAdm Dusty Miller: I said a 25% decrease.

Mr. Art Hanger: It is 25%.

RAdm Dusty Miller: That's Maritime Forces Atlantic in Halifax. Much of that was hit at the support side of the base, on the infrastructure side of people supporting our ships to go to sea.

Mr. Art Hanger: Where are the Maritime Forces Atlantic now in regard to that 25% reduction? Is it a 25% reduction yet, or is there more to come?

RAdm Dusty Miller: I have about 10% less to operate with this year, and then it stabilizes.

Mr. Art Hanger: So there are no more cuts next year?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Next year our projection is that there are no more cuts, that we have stabilized.

That's why I'm saying we're coming out of a transition from going down this 25%. I have about 10% in my operating budget. I guess I'm talking about $10 million. We have an operating budget of around $200 million left to go.

Mr. Art Hanger: You have $200 million left to cut?

RAdm Dusty Miller: No, $200 million is my operating budget in the Halifax area. I have about $10 million coming out of that from various places over the next year.

We've looked at that from a people and operations perspective, and I'm taking it out of the activity level of the fleet. I'm reducing that activity level.

Mr. Art Hanger: Less training?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Less training, exactly. I'm avoiding taking it out of people.

Mr. Art Hanger: I understand there's an area not too far from here that the divers use in their training.

RAdm Dusty Miller: Yes, the fleet diving unit is across the harbour.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is that under threat of closure?

RAdm Dusty Miller: We would never close our diving capability. I don't quite understand the question. We will always have a fleet diving unit.

Mr. Art Hanger: The location.

RAdm Dusty Miller: The location right now is at Shearwater. Since the closing of the runway at Shearwater, there are two parcels of land at Shearwater that are excess to our needs and are up for sale. The local municipality is trying to buy those two parcels of land. They do not include the fleet diving unit or its facilities.

A group is studying whether or not the jetty at Shearwater could be used by the city for commercial interests in concert with the activity that is under way with our ships and the operations we have.

So this is actually a very specific question you're asking here?

Mr. Art Hanger: It is.

RAdm Dusty Miller: Is the fleet diving unit in danger of losing its facility? At the moment I would say no. We have to talk about whether or not any commercial venture would be compatible with what we are doing in operations there. We're nowhere near getting those discussions to details of, yes, we can work this out, or no, we can't.

The fleet diving unit spends some 214 or 215 days a year physically using those facilities, which were chosen especially for the calm water that's over there, the lack of traffic.

They train their divers, and they have some very unique, good, expensive pieces of kit, and some of them are hardwired to that area.

To move all of that would cost a lot of money. Would it be worth moving all of that? I don't know, and that's where we're at with respect to talking about it.

Mr. Art Hanger: So it's still up in the air, I guess.

RAdm Dusty Miller: It's certainly up in the air, yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: My next question is on the CANEX. It's not the first time I've been in a CANEX, but the chairman and I had the opportunity to go into one at the resource centre, and we looked at some of the prices.

• 0755

I talked to a couple of people. It was obvious that there wasn't a whole lot of difference in prices when you would compare it, say, to picking up something at a 7-Eleven. The furniture is difficult to compare, but it seems that for the most part the general theme is that you're not really at much of an advantage by having a CANEX close by. That's been picked up right across our tour.

What is wrong with, or has anyone given any thought to, tying this whole operation into the PX system in the United States? They can purchase goods a heck of a lot cheaper there than what obviously has been picked up here, and the choice is much greater.

RAdm Dusty Miller: What is wrong with paying our sailors more salary? I mean, you're really asking me— It's a philosophy you're getting at, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: You can carry that to the point of asking, what is wrong with giving them all a bunch of tax breaks, which they really deserve?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Exactly. There's nothing wrong. I think that's a good idea.

Mr. Art Hanger: I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of these so-called benefits aren't really benefits. They're either clawed back in taxes or you pay the same price as everybody else pays out in the market, or sometimes even more than that.

If you're looking for benefits that are going to make things a little easier, this is one suggestion that came up at one point. I'm just curious to see if anybody has looked at that to see if, okay, now we have a system that's operating in a much more beneficial manner for its members. Why not tie it in for quantity of goods and choice?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Right. Well, there are a couple of things about CANEX itself. It certainly provides a reasonable price for material all year round. It does have its own sale system. The profits of that CANEX do go into a central fund.

It's our money, and it's that money that we are using to advantage to get cabins built, and that kind of thing. So there is a hidden advantage, but not everyone will see that up front.

Second, we get into philosophy when we do a comparison with the United States' way of doing business. I'm not saying my remark at the beginning was flippant, but it was this philosophical difference in the way we treat Canadians across the country, whether they're in the military or not in the military—

The United States is obviously larger. They set up a whole base, and there isn't a department store, there isn't a commissary; they build one. It's a huge organization, and they truck in really cheap goods because they have the bargaining power to obtain them.

What I'm trying to do here locally is to use the bargaining power of our over 10,000 people here who actually work for the military and from time to time are recognized by the community here. I'm not going to say they're taken for granted. They've always been here; therefore, they'll always be here. So why give them any break above and beyond anybody else?

What we're trying to say is that our over 10,000 people represent quite an economic impact.

One of the reasons I went in front of the cameras last week and said we are going to have this international exercise in the next couple of months— It's going to bring 25 foreign ships to Halifax, because we're running this. They're going to inject about $9 million into your Halifax greater regional municipality. What kind of break can you give my military people—because I don't have to schedule that exercise here.

They're saying, whoa, maybe we'll give these guys— Burger King is going to give us a 15% discount if we show our military ID. I figure every little bit is going to help, you know.

Mr. Art Hanger: Well, it is.

RAdm Dusty Miller: All of a sudden we do have a bargaining chip that we haven't used before. If we keep using that bargaining chip, then perhaps individual municipalities can get the advantage, and we don't need the CANEX here. We are then competing with ourselves to get a better deal, and we can save the money elsewhere and get a better deal throughout.

But there may be some cause for maintaining that CANEX until we do firmly establish ourselves in the community and get a better deal.

• 0800

Mr. Art Hanger: I have one last question.

DND has parcels of land across the country. Some of those parcels sit right in the middle of cities, urban areas. I'm not just talking about the navy side, but there are obviously some out here, too, that may end up going on the auction block.

You have Calgary, with 1,000 acres right in the middle of the city; Edmonton, with 640 acres going up for sale in the middle of the city. Whatever is out here is obviously going to be worth a good dollar.

What negotiation or discussion has there been on the part of DND as to what is going to be done with the money that is generated from the sale of that land? It's obviously going to go back in the general revenue, but I wonder if there aren't hard negotiations going on to have it injected back into military needs. It doesn't seem to be the thinking of anyone I've talked with in the military, yet here is a resource that's going to disappear. It's going to be a one-time shot. It's sold, it's gone, and it's going to generate a fair number of dollars, yet it's general revenue. Have you been part of any negotiations in reference to that kind of negotiation?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Not really, so I can't really answer on specifics, but I'm aware of the philosophical debate you're coming into.

Can we obtain the profits from the sale of some of our excess land and equipment? It's not just land. We're retiring a few ships here. There's one in the harbour right now. HMCS Cormorant, which was our hydrographic vessel, is up for sale. I have asked that whatever money is received for that, we put it back into the navy side of things. If we can do that, so much the better.

You're right, the money now goes into a central pot and gets doled out across all government departments, in a way. Some of it comes back to defence, but some of it is being used centrally by the government as they see fit. I guess why we're in front of you today is to say maybe some of that money should come back to the military, to make our lives better.

Mr. Art Hanger: No question. It would certainly correct the housing problem.

RAdm Dusty Miller: That would be a start, but there may be other things it could correct too.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, thank you.

RAdm Dusty Miller: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Admiral.

You made a statement earlier. In reference to budgets, you said you'd like it to stabilize.

From this year to next year, there's approximately a 10% drop in budget for the military. You said you're going to take that out in operations and not in reducing personnel, but we've had people call for a pay increase, which I think is completely reasonable. With the pay increase, I would think there's no way you can possibly stabilize the number of people.

I'd like your comments on that.

RAdm Dusty Miller: I guess that's assuming that the pay increase has to come from within our own department. If it does, then yes, we have choices to make, and we do make those choices, depending on our circumstances.

If you're saying that to pay our people more means the budget we have here to do all those operations around the world is going to be cut, or the money I get for everything is going to be cut to pay people more, you're right. I have to take it from somewhere. That's what I was talking about—robbing Peter to pay Paul.

That's why we're asking for central government's help, because we're saying we've taken it on the backs of our people to the point where we have maintained an operational activity. I'm telling my masters I'm taking it out of our operational activity. For military operators, they probably don't like that a whole bunch, but that's reality.

I'm saying to you that rather than reduce people any more, which saves you a lot of money on salaries— I need all the people I have right now, with the exception of maybe a couple of pockets. With the introduction of new equipment that doesn't need as much work, repair, and that kind of thing, you can very carefully adjust your workforce so that they're channelled in other directions.

• 0805

Yes, if we have to pay people more money and if we're told that has to come out of the defence budget, we'll be trying to look at, as I said, clever ways of being able to do that so that the benefit of that extra pay is a benefit and not a detraction.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Where else would the money come from other than out of the defence budget?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Perhaps you can answer that better than I.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. Leon Benoit: What I'm saying here is that we've heard people, and rightly so, asking for pay and benefit increases. We've had people call for better treatment of the injured, including better access to reasonable pensions for people who were hurt serving the country. We've had people ask for better consideration in postings, especially in regard to keeping families together. That's a very legitimate thing they're asking for there. We've had people asking for better equipment, including personal kits. We've had people asking for relief from, frankly, being overworked.

All of these things are being asked for, yet you know and I know there was roughly a decrease down to a level of $9.3 billion in the military budget for next year, which means approximately a 10% decrease over this next year in terms of your operation.

Now, let's say this government somehow decides to change its ways and put a billion dollars back into the budget. That would be a complete change in ways, because in 1992, when I first looked at the military budget, it was $12.5 billion a year. It's now down to $9.3 billion. So say that change of heart comes about and let's say a billion dollars is put back in next year's budget in February—that's when the next budget comes down—and it is going to be put in place for that following year.

Then you, as the head of land forces—

RAdm Dusty Miller: I'm Maritime Forces Atlantic.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Sorry.

RAdm Dusty Miller: That's quite all right. You're not picking on the land forces, are you?

Mr. Leon Benoit: No, not at all.

But you, being in charge of that, have to make a decision as to what you would do with that billion dollars. All that does is put it back up to the level of this year again, because once that cut is taken in down to $9.3 billion, the billion dollars would increase it maybe just slightly above this year's level, or last year's level. Where would your priorities be?

RAdm Dusty Miller: You just told me that if the defence budget was increased—shocking—to pay people more money, then we would be in the same shape here as we are now. In other words, I'm going to be reducing operations by about 10% to find the 10% that I know is cut now.

But, hey, my people would be paid more money. A lot of the problems you have been hearing would not go away entirely, but they would go away. Not only that, I'm taking it out of operations, so they would be away from home less, get their stress level down a little, and have a little more money. I think it would be better, not worse.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course it wouldn't be worse. But we haven't felt the full impact of the budget cuts yet from the last budget from two years ago.

RAdm Dusty Miller: That's right. This is the last year of the budget cuts.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's right, so if in next year's budget in February this billion dollars is put back in, you have to decide whether it'll go into pay and benefits, better treatment of the injured, pensions and things like that, or better equipment, including personal equipment. It's all from the same $9.3 billion. Let's say the government did have a complete change of heart and it went up to $10.3 billion. For giving relief to people who are overworked, where would you set the priorities?

RAdm Dusty Miller: On people. I just said that my priority is on the people. I would put it into pay and the medical side of things. I would be reducing operations to save the money that is required for that 10% cut so then there is even less stress on the family.

I told you that the navy is in good shape equipment-wise. It's in very good shape. We have 28 brand-new ships, all Canadian. I'd like to see them marketed around the world, and I'm hoping those Canadian industrial companies can do it, because they have something to offer.

• 0810

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you think with the $1 billion added back in—which again puts the budget at approximately the level it is now—you're somehow going to be able to give a meaningful pay increase?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Well, it's not going to be worse.

I'm not sure I get the point. I'm standing here saying these guys need to be paid more. That's my priority. If you're willing to give us $1 billion, we'll take it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: It of course has nothing to do with me; it has to do with the government, which is Liberal. We're in opposition. I'd like to make that very clear.

My point is—

RAdm Dusty Miller: I've got my gang here, you know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —even if the turnaround takes place, you're back to the same level you're at right now.

RAdm Dusty Miller: I guess I'm trying to say no, we're not. I've got very proud sailors in this fleet, and a lot of them are happy doing what they do. They choose the navy, they do go away to sea. Not everything is awful here. We are narrowing it to a couple of things. One is their pay, and you're hearing from me that it's my priority. I'm hoping it will be your priority.

I was in the U.K. in 1978, and I was the highest-paid officer in all of NATO at that time. The U.K. officers were at the bottom; they were around the lowest paid. The next year they got a 34% pay hike, and from 1978 to today I have been the lowest-paid officer in NATO. We have one of the best militaries in the world, so you tell me where the priority is.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Well, you're making my point, exactly.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much, Admiral Miller.

I'm very interested in what you're saying about pay. Obviously it's the central issue.

Something we heard last night that really disturbed me was that some people feel they're getting dangerous and sometimes substandard medical care within the military. They feel there is a lack of respect for the rights of individuals, they're not getting access to their medical records, and they're not getting paid on time. There are terrible problems with getting paid on time, getting the right amount, and having their money snatched back because they were overpaid.

I'm trying to separate our financial issues, which come from this sucking out of the money in the military, from those that are systemic and attitudinal. What is it that does not allow the military to seemingly have a decent medical system that people can trust and a decent bookkeeping system that allows them to get paid on time? What are your thoughts on that?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Let's take the medical system first.

Our medical system was subject to the same pressures of reduced budgets, how we provide the same service, what we should provide to our people in the field in medical services, and what they are provided with when they are ashore.

In the navy we have a medical assistant aboard every ship, and when we send a group of ships away a doctor goes with them. Those are unique medical requirements. A whole hospital ashore, when there are four or five hospitals in your community, might not be entirely a unique medical requirement other than for the fact that you need a place for the medical people you put in the field to come and practise their trade when they come ashore.

I guess you're well aware of the look at health services across Canada. Unfortunately the military hasn't been any different. There have been cutbacks. We must provide the medical services in the field; that's the primary concern. This meant reducing the number we had to allow it to happen. We took a clever look at it, asking how we maintain a reasonable level of service and how we use the local community's hospital system, as well as having a small core ourselves that has to go out into the field. That's what you've been seeing happening over the last few years.

• 0815

We've gone from “let's provide everything”—and in fact on the housing side we've gone from providing subsidized housing to the philosophy that, no, it should be the same, tagged to the regular community. We've gone from the medical services being all-encompassing and there being no waiting period to someone having to go downtown for an X-ray because we couldn't afford to replace our X-ray machine.

That's life, I guess, and I'm sad about it too. I don't know that we can turn the clock back. The health services of any province in Canada would probably say they're having a hard time making ends meet. So are we, so it's the field that has to take the priority.

Regrettably, what is different from us is the field. When someone goes off in a ship and gets sick, that person could end up in any hospital. Hopefully the individual will come back to your hospital and be tracked by a doctor, but we have doctors who move into the field and back again. The individual's care isn't as stable as that of somebody growing up and living in Halifax all his life and never having to go to anybody other than the doctor he grew up with as a little boy.

I believe we need to compensate for that somehow. We do need stable medical services. I guess they're struggling, along with the rest of us, to ensure the jobs we are tasked to do we can still do. We're looking at alternative ways of being able to provide the medical services for our troops, our people, and we are now using community services.

It means sometimes they have to travel farther to get the same kinds of service they were able to get here on the base. That's life. Is it right? It's probably not entirely right. But is it wrong to try to save money and still provide a reasonable specialized service? That's the way it is.

In the second part of your question, I think you're referring to the pay system for our reservists. It's a demanding challenge, because our reservists in the navy come from 24 divisions across the country and are hired for three days or four days at a time, or six months or 30 days at a time.

When they are chosen to serve for a certain purpose, say, on our coastal defence vessels—they're all being proudly manned by the reserves—they go to sea. Their pay records are in Edmonton. If they go to sea for a short time, the pay records stay in Edmonton. If they come back, they send their pay records to Halifax. There is a nightmare's worth of complications for a pay system that would work for the Bank of Montreal but won't work for this kind of situation.

I'm not making excuses for this. I would guess the reservists' biggest problem or irritant is the way they get paid. They would like to be paid accurately and on time. I still get letters from ships' captains who say their people aren't getting paid accurately and on time.

We've introduced centrally three different types of computer programs and systems to try to fix this. Each time we try something different, some of it gets fixed, but some of it doesn't. Let me tell you about the some of it that doesn't fixed.

When that ship leaves the harbour and disconnects from the fibre optic computer LAN that allows it to tell its ship's company what pay they are allowed to get and when, they are off on their own. We haven't got the satellite systems, which are very expensive, to allow them to be paid when they stop in Boston. This is not good.

What am I doing about it? We're actually going back to manual pay records until somebody sorts this out. Somebody? I know who this somebody is, and we keep telling that somebody it's not working under these specific circumstances. It may be working for a whole bunch of people, but it isn't working for some of our sailors. To me, the sailors and those guys who fly in the aircraft and go away to places come first. We have to develop a system that serves them first. The people who are sitting ashore somewhere can go to a bank and sort it out with a banker. They can sort out the problem, but the guys out there can't. That's where I'm trying to hit the system to make it better.

• 0820

Ms. Wendy Lill: I have just one more quick question.

I was interested in your comment about getting some discounts from Burger King for people, given the fact we have a very large constituency of people here.

What about working on this whole concept of phone mercy, allowing women and their husbands to be able to connect across the world when they're on duty? Isn't the same kind of clout possible with, for example, Sprint or MT&T? Get a phone card. Get a 10¢ a minute rate. Can you do it? Are you thinking of this as well?

RAdm Dusty Miller: Yes, we can do it and we are doing it. We have to— I'm not sure we have to be careful doing it. We don't have to be careful doing it.

I've gone in front of the families of HMCS Toronto in the Gulf. There are some differences between today and how it was when our sailors were in the Gulf in 1990 and 1991. It's very expensive to call home from the Gulf. We do give people a free 15-minute phone call once a month. That isn't a lot, you know. Some of the ladies told me that by the time you get an operator, who doesn't speak English, attached to another operator in France, who attaches you to your husband, and your husband says hello, your 15 minutes are pretty well gone.

The phone bills are $800 a month. That's a lot of money for people who aren't getting paid the right salary in the first place or are not getting paid as much salary as I would like to see them get paid.

What do we do about that? We have gone to MT&T. We are trying to shame the competitors into providing the military with a break, because there are—you're right—10,000 to 12,000 of them. A lot of them do go away, and we should get a better deal.

What is different, though, is that we do have an e-mail system now in our ships; we didn't have that five or six years ago. Toronto has sent 12,000 e-mails. I actually have to put some standards on these e-mails, because some people send 20-page e-mails and it does cost a lot of money. They have to go up to a satellite and come down again.

We're trying to say two or three paragraphs is what should reasonably be sent as often as the operational program will allow. We do start looking at operations here.

I think families are being in touch with each other more now than I have ever known. In World War II you'd get a letter once in three months; that would be the only contact you'd have with your husband, who was away in the war. Now it's instant, and in emergencies there is no question. The commanding officer of a ship in the middle of nowhere will pick up the phone and call me personally on an emergency, and we'll sort it out. So I figure we have emergencies covered.

As for the personal choice of going more than 15 minutes, I think we need to give them more than 15 minutes, but there is a personal choice as to how much you talk to your family when they're away. Should they have the ability to talk to them? You bet. We're trying to get that ability to be as cheap as we can by working with MT&T, Sprint, and some of the competitors around here.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Ms. Lill.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much for coming this morning, Admiral Miller. I think it's quite important that you be here, particularly a senior officer like yourself. We haven't heard from too many senior officers in front of their soldiers like this. I guess it shows your closeness to your group, and I think that's very important.

I think a lot of my questions have been answered, but one thing is that you said pay is your primary concern. Your three themes were pay, housing, and operational tempo. Do you look at them in that order of priority? They would be your three main themes. Are they your personal themes, or is it the feeling you get coming down through the ranks?

RAdm Dusty Miller: I guess it's a feeling I get coming down through, and it's my own feeling too. I'm talking as an individual in front of you, as well as being very comfortable in leading what I have told you is a high-tech, very intelligent navy. We have to be clever about how we look at it.

• 0825

My feeling is they're not paid enough for the work they do. They work harder than ever. It's a two-edged sword, because ships at sea— And when I visit them their morale is up. They're focused on what they're doing in an operation, they're doing what they love to do, and their families are farther away. It's when you mix the two that you've got a volatile thing. When they're alongside for too long, the morale goes down. They think because they're in a ship, they should be at sea.

It's a unique service. It's a very demanding service. The pay is part of it. When they do come home, they want to spend the time at home. You really do have quality time with your family when you are with your family. Therefore, everything we should do should be to recognize that quality time has to be enhanced. It has to be quality time, they have to have a nice house, they have to have reasonable housing.

So operations is the third thing I'm looking at. I mentioned the example of Toronto being tasked to go at the last minute. During the first Gulf war it took 10 days to put new equipment aboard old ships to allow them to even get ready to sail out of this harbour. The government said it needed a ship in the Persian Gulf. I said: “Well, Toronto, you're off Portugal right now. Turn left and then instead of going right—”. It was a brand-new capable ship, and the only extra training we had to give the people on the ship was in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. We also had to provide them with the proper protection for going into that area of the world. It was done like that. That's quite a leap in what we're able to do in the navy and what we can't do.

The Toronto was going to be away about 10 of the next 12 months. I said: “Who did that? What exactly are they going to have to do for 10 out of 12 months?” They would have been away from their families for that long. I cancelled four months of it.

Mr. David Price: I think you're in a very interesting position, you know. We are a lobby group in a sense to the government. You're also in that position.

General Baril has been very clear right along in saying he wouldn't rob Peter to pay Paul. Obviously we've got to go and look for financing from somewhere else—and I think both Mr. Hanger and Mr. Benoit brought that up.

It was mentioned, too, the pieces of land we have. There are other sources to look at. I think that's probably a direction in which we're going to have to look.

I appreciate the fact— and I expect you will be helping us along at the top end by doing the lobbying from your side, as you're doing here today. Thank you for being here.

RAdm Dusty Miller: I hope we can find the money from the people of Canada.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Rear-Admiral, I enjoyed your presentation very much. The members of this committee will be asked to discuss the problems faced at present by our military forces and to find solutions for them. To my mind, the chief problem is underpayment. I'd like to say to you, and this is not a question but rather a comment, that suggestions are being made to this committee. There was talk of selling assets and keeping the money within the forces. I'm in favour of that too, but wishing doesn't necessarily make it so, as you know.

There's talk of reductions, tax breaks, things that can be had duty free and loads of things which, to me, look like privileges. I'm telling you my position before the committee. I think that the current problem in the forces has to do with the fact that, for many years, they have been underpaid while enjoying a lot of privileges—

RAdm Dusty Miller: Yes, that's right.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: —which meant that the overall picture looked good. As the privileges were withdrawn, however, we were faced with the sad truth. The pay was poor. If the committee recommends that the forces be granted more privileges but not a substantial raise in pay, according to the mood of the governments that follow and pressure by journalists, we shall once again have privileges that become illusory with regard to military pay.

• 0830

So, my personal recommendation is that we not emphasize the privileges, the things that can be purchased duty free at the CANEX. We recognize that we have a quality army and that in future we must pay its members like quality professionals. This is the recommendation I plan to make to this committee. If a few privileges end up being secured, through negotiations, in exchange for something else, well, that's fine for the army, but it would be devastating if compensation were based on privileges instead of rights. That's what I wanted to say to you.

RAdm Dusty Miller: Nowadays, there are even fewer privileges in the Canadian Armed Forces and less pay. That's where the problem lies.

[English]

I'll say a few words in English about this. You're quite right, sir, the privileges you hear we have have been eroding, and they're background. You don't always hear about them.

What you can do something about is the level of pay. The privileges have been eroding. We no longer have subsidized housing. We have no longer a CANEX that gives you 50% off what you can get downtown. We have no longer duty-free cigarettes. This is something that has evolved as our society has evolved, and it's a societal thing with these privileges.

The benefits we're able to use our collective bargaining for in the Halifax-Dartmouth region and indeed in every base across Canada—those bargaining chips are good only as long as you need them. They will come and go, depending on how you can provide the profile that your base pay is not good enough.

Your challenge is what you can effect from a national perspective in providing a better base pay. That's what I would say is our priority, and that's what you're hearing from me as the commander around here. Locally we'll look after some of those privileges we can get locally to make the lives of the people we have working for us in the individual spots across Canada better.

[Translation]

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

[English]

Thank you, Admiral.

Before you go, during the conversation a comment was made, and I just wanted to make sure that everybody is on the same track. The comment, if I understood it right, was that the defence budget would be cut by 10% next year.

RAdm Dusty Miller: That's not correct.

The Chairman: I just wanted to make it perfectly clear that for next year the defence budget will be increasing. For this year, 1998, the amount is $9.3827 billion, and for next year, for 1999, the budget will be $9.7407 billion. There's an increase of roughly $370 million. I just wanted to make sure everybody got that information.

RAdm Dusty Miller: Thank you. I got mixed up with my own personal budget and the national budget of—

The Chairman: I see. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Chairman, doesn't this increase reflect the fact that submarines are being bought? Isn't it allocated to equipment?

The Chairman: No.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: All right. We'll check.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

RAdm Dusty Miller: Thank you very much.

[English]

The Chairman: Chief Petty Officer Earl Corn.

Chief Petty Officer Earl Corn (Individual Presentation): Mr. Bertrand, other MPs, first of all, I must apologize. I do not speak en français and so the best I can do is my mother tongue from Saskatchewan, English.

It is an honour to have the privilege to speak to you today. I'm very optimistic and have faith that you are here to listen carefully to just some of the outstanding personnel who make up Maritime Forces Atlantic, as well as to their families and friends.

It was only a short few months ago that SCONDVA was here in Halifax and chaired by Ms. Mary Clancy. That committee listened intently to many of the maritime forces families, who hoped they could see some of the many problems facing today's service family. Our personnel hoped and prayed they could truly help, but what happened next was an election, and now we have a group of new faces.

• 0835

Let us hope this new committee will hear their voices and once again put their concerns on a track that cannot be swayed. Let us hope in a short time we will actually see results in Parliament, which will truly assist our service personnel and their families. It is imperative that this committee be totally bipartisan, as are those of Canada's military who serve you.

I have read many of the reports you have heard from across this great country and only want to expand and broaden these horizons.

First of all is care for our injured, and not just those who were injured in theatre on active duty but also those who risk their lives each and every day in carrying out their normal duties in the service of our country.

During the Gulf War, I was coxswain of HMCS Margaree. The ship was deploying to the sunny Caribbean to carry out NATO exercises with the Standing Naval Force Atlantic. What happened next was that we were diverted to rendezvous in Ponta Delgada in the Azores. After a short port visit it was off to sea and work up a squadron so that the NATO Quick Reaction Force was ready to meet any contingency given. After intense work-up, we sailed into Funchal in the Madeira Islands, for what was to be a few days of well-deserved rest and recreation.

This was not to be, for at 2.45 p.m. on February 8, 1991, two of my shipmates were killed in a tragic diving accident under the hull of the American frigate USS Pharris. Each day I drink from a mug that was given to me by the command master chief of the USS Pharris. I do this to remind me of my shipmates, Sub-Lieutenant Corey Wells and Master Seaman Billy Hynes, who lost their lives in this tragic accident.

What I worry about most of all is Mrs. Debbie Hynes, as she raises three young boys on her own, with about 50% of his wage and—if there's any money left—the small supplementary death benefit paid.

In another light, what will happen to Corporal Ricard, one of our CE soldiers here, when he retires? He lost his leg in a freak accident in Petawawa in 1991.

In Maritime Forces Atlantic there is a lot of pride taken in how we look after our personnel, using all our resources and working evenings and weekends to ensure the best possible care is given to our injured, sick, and dying.

An example is the medical patients holding list. We have a commander in charge of personnel who acts as the commanding officer and the base chief petty officer acts as the divisional chief petty officer. We try to ensure in all cases there is no red tape to cut and spouses and families are not left to fend for themselves. We want to meet the needs of the entire family.

To name just a few examples: We've built wheelchair ramps and moved hospital beds to homes. We have provided assisting officers for terminally ill persons months in advance of death, ensuring that estates and everything else required are looked after. After a service person has passed away, we ensure the assisting officer keeps in touch with the family years after the death, offering his help in any way he can.

I would like to offer you, Mr. Chairman, and your committee a cup so that you perhaps will symbolically remember all the servicemen and servicewomen who put their well-being on the line each day in the service of our country.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we are different, those who put on this uniform. It's not just the uniform of a job, but the uniform of a vocation.

When there is a ship in trouble at sea, we will bounce off 40-footers in a force-10 gale to rescue its crew. We will send out a helicopter, pushing it to its very limits in the worst weather and dangle one of our SAR technicians off a skinny wire to save someone's life.

I cannot speak for the army, but you must also listen to their stories. We do these things because of our love for this country and its people, putting their welfare above that of our own. All we ask at the end of the day is that for those who are killed or injured in the line of duty, you look after them and their families. Let's not allow the cloud of bureaucracy to overshadow our judgment of what type of duty they were on when these tragic incidents happened.

• 0840

My last item is with regard to pay, and I know you've already heard much on this topic. With a company of regular civilians and reservists of approximately 100,000, we are one of the major employers of this country. You must pay, from our lowest privates and ordinary seamen to our generals and admirals, a fair wage for what they do.

First, we know that our country was in great trouble due to the great deficit accumulated over many years. We in the military have shared in bringing this under control in two ways—first, by dropping our annual cost from over $12 billion to $9 billion through the freezing of our pay and the cuts to our numbers. Our military leaders have risen to the challenge, presenting new and innovative ideas such as buying back accrued leave to help our service personnel make ends meet. It's a funny thing—for the ones at the bottom of the ladder, the junior officers and junior NCMs, all their leave has been bought back.

As well, the military has been given personnel adjustments from the savings to catch up with a benchmarking—I'm sure you are aware of it—that is tied to the public service. Many service personnel believe this costs them thousands of dollars over the years. We believe that Treasury Board should pay for these discrepancies in the benchmarking. It should happen immediately and not over three or four years, and any difference in these discrepancies should be paid in back pay immediately.

I know how proud Canadian people are of their service personnel, especially since the floods in Manitoba and the ice storms in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick.

I will tell you a story to emphasize the difference between how service personnel perceive their vocations and how a civilian perceives his job. Across the street from where I reside lives a young man and his family. He works for Nova Scotia Power. During the ice storms he went to Maine to work. During the 18 days he was gone he earned over $13,000 in overtime, and some of his mates who went to Quebec and Ontario made similar amounts of money. On his return he took his wife to Venezuela for a one-week vacation.

On the same street lives an army corporal who went to Quebec for approximately 17 days. He received his normal pay and a whopping $12.35 a day in field pay. Guess what he did when he got home? We gave him five days special leave. He sat at home for those days and didn't have a vacation.

You might say the corporal was paid to do a job and that was the career he chose, but was it fair? I and the majority of civilians I talk to agree it was not fair.

I talked a short while ago about pay. Wouldn't it have been great if the CEO of my company, the Chief of Defence Staff, could have said here is an extra $1,000 in your pay envelope for an outstanding job well done in support of the citizens of your country?

I could speak of many other examples of what is required to help our service personnel and their families, but I believe I have said enough. Now it's time for action, and I'm counting on you for that.

I would like to close with a quote from the famous Canadian poet Major John McCrae:

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.




Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Chief Petty Officer, thank you very much for your presentation. I was particularly pleased to see your focus on treatment of the injured and of families of people who are killed in action. We of course have heard about that many times as we've gone across the country.

You were talking about buying back accrued leave. Did I hear you say that actually has happened?

CPO Earl Corn: Yes, it has happened.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And when did that happen and what did it mean—

CPO Earl Corn: We've done it three or four times now where savings that were done through the ADM, or accumulated throughout the nation in the military— At the end of the year we've offered people who have accrued leave— You may not be aware that people start off with 20 days of leave each year and in the fifth year they get 25 days.

• 0845

Under the old leave system, because people couldn't take all their leave, or for whatever reasons, they accumulated this leave and it became what we call accrued leave. The policy has changed and now each year you must take your leave to the best of your ability. Only under special operational circumstances are you allowed to accumulate it.

We just had a recent buy-back of leave. That will be on the end-of-May pay for this year for any of those who desire it. But in most cases the junior officers or junior service person, because they haven't been in long enough enough to take advantage of this—because they had no leave to sell to begin with—or if they did, they may have done it the first time around—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're talking about accrued leave before the time—the policy now is that you can't accrue leave from—

CPO Earl Corn: Unless it's an operational commitment, sir. Unless we are doing an operation that is forced or something has changed so that we can do that. And then the maximum you can obtain is 25 days.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm trying to get an idea of how much leave—in the army I believe it's an absolute requirement that leave has to be used by the end of the year.

CPO Earl Corn: This is the new leave policy. We try to use it to the best of our ability. It has some advantages. In 33 years of wearing this uniform, I've had two times where I've had three weeks' straight leave. For me it was probably the best thing that ever happened. I actually had a chance to relax. So it was a bonus, because under the old system I was getting a week or ten days, and by the time you started to slow down you were already worried about going back to where you were at.

But it's not guaranteed that every soldier, sailor, airman or airwoman in our organization will get that opportunity. We try to the best of our ability to make sure we do.

Mr. Leon Benoit: This buying back of leave—are you talking about a lot of dollars? Is it—

CPO Earl Corn: It depends on how many days you were— Some of them were as little as 9 days and some were as many as 30. Last year whatever you put in, if you had some, was gone. This year if you had accrued leave and whatever you chose—20, 30, 50; you might even have had 150 of them—whatever you put in will all be paid back this year. Not everyone takes advantage of that. Some people want to stow it away for somewhere down the pipe—maybe for their retirement or to leave the service early.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Chief Petty Officer. And thank you very much for the cups.

Warrant Officer Jim McCluskey.

RAdm Dusty Miller: I'm leaving, Mr. Chairman. The people behind me may just love to talk to you alone, so thank you very much for allowing me to be here.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

Warrant Officer Jim McCluskey (Individual Presentation): Good day. My name's Jim McCluskey. I'm here to represent the SAR Tech trade. In my discussion today there are two points: salary review and rescue specialist allowance.

The search and rescue technician military occupational classification is extremely unique and is one of the most dangerous and demanding jobs in the world. Search and rescue technicians, commonly referred to as SAR Techs, frequently face life-and-death situations. Rapid and complex decision-making is essential to the job and for the safety of both the casualties on the ground and the SAR Techs. The SAR Techs' physical environment is a harsh one, where rescue incidents take place in the foulest weather. SAR Techs are expected to react in the most unfavourable conditions. Reacting includes parachuting, wilderness survival, diving, mountain rescue, dangling from a helicopter, and advanced emergency trauma care.

In the present economic cycle of inflation and pay freezes, cost-of-living increases, and higher taxes, the SAR Tech's specification is due for a salary review. Given the considerable risk that SAR Techs are called upon to make and the monetary value the government places on the service, it is hoped that SAR Techs be paid a salary and risk allowance commensurate with their duties and the risks they're called upon to make.

The aim of the service paper, which I've turned in, is to highlight the discrepancies between the considerable risks SAR Techs are called upon to make and the monetary value associated with it. This is not intended to sound mercenary. Given the present economy and a history of pay freezes, the quality of life in the SAR Techs is suffering.

To facilitate the flow and understanding of our concerns, the paper will focus on two topics. The first is the SAR Tech's salary compared to the work environment, and the second is the rescue specialist allowance. The paper will demonstrate that the current SAR Tech salary is insufficient. It is hoped that a thorough study of this paper will elicit a review of the SAR Tech pay field and allowances.

• 0850

The SAR Tech salary is composed of the Canadian Forces pay field at the specialist 1 level and a rescue specialist allowance. Together they make up the SAR Tech salary. The allowance portion of the salary is not pensionable.

Search and rescue technicians provide the Canadian Forces and the citizens of Canada with a highly specialized rescue service. SAR Techs possess the skills, knowledge, professionalism, and courage required to meet the unique mandate of the Canadian people. No other department in Canada can provide this diversification of skills and training. In many countries several separate organizations are required to execute a rescue mission.

In Canada the government has recognized the high level of skills SAR Techs possess and has authorized them to carry out rescue missions in all types of inclement weather. Using many different types of aircraft platforms, SAR Techs deliver life-saving procedures and medicines to patients. The government, medical profession, the Canadian Forces, and the civilian population all recognize and appreciate the skills of the search and rescue technician and the good PR associated with it.

SAR Techs work to their physical, mental, and emotional limits, exercising the professionalism and maturity they are renowned for. The search and rescue technician performs both air and sea operations to provide assistance to personnel in distress. They render life-saving and sustaining medical care that has improved considerably over the last decade. SAR Techs prepare and extricate casualties for travel by air, sea, and land. They have carried out survival procedures under all climatic and training conditions. They have performed missions in the Arctic, in and on the oceans, in rugged mountain terrain, and in ice fields. The rescue missions are performed in the worst conditions imaginable, both in climate and terrain.

Search and rescue squadrons respond to hundreds of cases each year. Many of these mission scenarios encompass the use of RAM air technology parachutes, hoisting the ships, using night vision goggles, and meeting medical requirements.

Today's search and rescue technician is highly specialized in the vast trauma medicine. They provide equipment that monitors the patient's heart rhythm, pulse, blood level, oxygen saturation levels, etc. SAR Techs must also provide advanced life treatment procedures to sustain life and reduce patient suffering.

When not performing flying duties, SAR Techs are required to provide first- and second-line maintenance to their equipment. This requires both training and time. Due to the Canadian Forces' reduction in budget and personnel, SAR Techs must now provide budget forecasts to manage the resources, operations, training, and maintenance.

Search and rescue technicians also have to maintain 24 flying currencies. They are the only trade or classification flying who are qualified on two aircraft.

Today's SAR Techs perform more administration than before. Given the last few years of downsizing, SAR Techs have become financial and supply administrators. Duties that were once performed by the unit clerks, wing supply, and financial services, have been passed on to the SAR Techs.

Personnel require leadership training, medical recertification, and trade progression training. To accomplish all this, plus our normal duties, we must wear several hats and work a lot of overtime. The SAR Tech profession ensures that a lot of time is spent away from home. This places additional stress and increases hardship on the member and his or her family.

It has been shown that SAR Tech search and rescue MOC is one of the most unique, demanding, and challenging jobs in the world. It is a highly specialized trade requiring extensive training and standards. While no monetary value can be placed on human life, it is important to remember that SAR Techs need an acceptable quality of life in order to maintain morale and dignity.

The second item of discussion is the allowance. The following list illustrates the spread between the rescue specialist's allowance and the air crew, paratrooper, and diver allowances. Search and rescue technicians risk their lives saving foreign nationals and Canadians several times a week. SAR Techs are on the front line 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, carrying out their missions. For every rescue that makes national headlines, there are hundreds of operations that do not that are equally as dangerous.

It has been previously demonstrated the SAR Tech trade must encompass the skills of parachuting, land survival, diving, mountain climbing, and advanced emergency trauma medicine. Reference B, which is in the book that I placed on the table, lists the various rescue allowances based on 12 years of service. I've done this for comparison reasons only. If air crew allowance, paratroop allowance, and dive allowance were added together, it would amount to over $700. The rescue specialist allowance is $439, yet SAR Techs are required to perform all the duties that make up the other allowances. In addition to air crew, paratroop, and diving, SAR Techs daily face perils associated with mountain climbing, boat hoisting, and proximity to possible disease.

Given the inconsistencies of the rescue specialist allowance, the SAR Tech trade hopes that SCONDVA will favour a thorough review of the present allowance. While quality of life cannot be solely narrowed down to fiscal rewards, financial independence is important for the SAR Techs and their families.

• 0855

In conclusion, this paper has only covered the surface of the search and rescue technicians and the things they are required and requested to accomplish.

SCONDVA already has a good understanding of the service SAR Techs provide to the Canadian public. The professionalism and work ethics of the search and rescue technician is second to none. There is no other service in the world that would jump into an Arctic storm, swim through 20-metre seas, parachute into densely forested areas or frigid ocean waters, or scale mountains to facilitate a rescue.

These are the duties that search and rescue technicians face with courage and discipline. It has been demonstrated that the SAR Tech trade is extremely unique. With this in mind, the trade would like to see a pay advance to the specialist II level and a rescue allowance that also includes aircrew, paratroop, and dive allowances.

To fully understand and appreciate the SAR Tech trade, it is requested that SCONDVA also review annexes A, B, and C, which are in the book, as testimony to the professionalism, courage, and self-sacrifice that search and rescue technicians provide throughout the year. The annexes include appreciations from the Prime Minister, the Governor General, the Minister of National Defence, and the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff at the time of writing.

The SAR Tech trade would like to request that if a review or study is to be made, SCONDVA grant them the opportunity to represent themselves personally so that the government has a better understanding of the requests it has placed upon the SAR Tech trade.

Quality of life is important to the Canadian Forces, and the search and rescue technicians are no exception. It is important to remember that SAR Techs are Canadian Forces personnel with hopes, dreams, commitments, and families who deserve to be rewarded for their dedication and commitment so that others may live.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you for that presentation.

Mr. Pratt.

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

Mr. Chairman, Warrant Officer McCluskey gave me the search and rescue technician's salary review book, and I'll be passing it off to the clerk shortly. Before the meeting started, Warrant Officer McCluskey mentioned that a number of his colleagues were going to be decorated. I'm not sure if they have already been decorated or if that's in the process right now, but perhaps you could share that information with us.

WO Jim McCluskey: We have four people who are being decorated. They've been awarded, so they know about this. Two of them are to receive the Star of Courage for their heroic action while 300 miles out to sea. A yacht lost its rudder and in a severe storm they set up the EPIRB and called for help, so we dashed out there. Two of the members on the helicopter had to hoist down to extract these people from the yacht. It was an older yacht and the main mast had guidelines that went down to the outside edge of the boat, so they couldn't physically get on the boat. What they had to do was to pluck them from the wires.

They managed to get two off like that, banging themselves up in the meantime. One person was clinging to the side of the boat from the wave that washed him overboard, and with a lot of effort the crew and the SAR Techs managed to pluck him from the vessel. The fourth member of the yacht was actually washed overboard, so they had to track him down. They could see him, but it took several attempts to get him because of the high seas.

We have two other members who will receive the Cross of Valour. The Cross of Valour, to those who aren't aware, is the highest medal given in Canada in peacetime. That will be given to two of our members for their heroic actions up in the Labrador Sea in December 1996, again in a severe storm. Their task was to jump into the waters, be picked up, and board a large container ship that had a member on it who was dying. Their job was to get there and lend as much medical aid as they could.

Again, when they got there it was dark, there was a severe storm with large swells, and it was very windy and very cold. The two members elected to jump into the ocean—it's up around the Arctic Circle—and before they were picked up they were covered in ice. They they sailed with the vessel into shore for about a day and a half, and the person they were sent down to treat survived. He had been suffering from severe dehydration, and it was felt by members on the ship that he would not have lasted if the SAR Techs hadn't have jumped.

• 0900

On the down side, two days ago a member in Trenton injured himself while parachuting. He broke both ankles. There was a lot of discussion for about six hours that day about amputating his leg. He probably will not be back in our trade. So there are some good sides to it, but there are also some down sides.

Mr. David Pratt: Warrant Officer McCluskey, can you tell the committee what the starting salary would be for a SAR Tech just entering the trade?

WO Jim McCluskey: The SAR Tech salary is between $40,000 and $44,000. You have your normal pay field, but then you get a specialist allowance and a danger allowance that is $400-plus for somebody who has been in for 12 years. For someone with less than that it's quite a bit less.

Mr. David Pratt: Are you required, as a condition of your employment, to maintain higher physical fitness levels than other people in the Canadian Forces?

WO Jim McCluskey: Yes, we are. Because of the job we do we're often banged around a lot racing to ships, parachuting, jumping into trees or onto ice fields. In order for these guys to bounce back from a mission, they have to be in fairly good physical condition.

Mr. David Pratt: One aspect in terms of the specialty pay that you mentioned really puzzles me, and that is that it is not pensionable service. Do you know what the rationale for that is?

WO Jim McCluskey: No. That came about in 1991. We wanted to do a pay salary review back then. It was taken up by a few senior officers, which is why I asked that we be represented if there is to be a review this time. Back then they told them that level I was fine and that the SAR Tech allowance wasn't pensionable. We questioned them on that. We said “We are paying taxes on it, so why can't it be pensionable”, but no good reason was ever given.

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

The Chairman: Your working schedule, how does that work?

WO Jim McCluskey: We set up our working schedule on a 30-day basis. You work what's called a flash day, which means you go on call at 4 p.m. If I was called today, I would go on at 4 p.m. and I would be on a pager until 7.30 a.m. the next morning. If there was call-out, I would respond to it. Then the next morning I would go in and put in a full day's work, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

The reality is that with this mandatory leave policy, where you have to take leave, we just don't have enough members to do the job, or enough man hours to do it with what we do have. Most of my colleagues—a lot of people in the service, not just SAR Techs—even though they are on call, probably the first four hours of that day that they are on call, when they are not supposed to be working, they are in fact at work and performing their duties.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.

WO Jim McCluskey: You are welcome.

The Chairman: We now have Barb St. John.

Ms. Barb St. John (Individual Presentation): Good morning. I'm here today to share with you my concern for our veterans. My father, father-in-law, and both grandfathers are and were veterans of world wars.

The concern I wish to voice today is about my father. He served in Canada, the United Kingdom, and continental Europe from 1939 to 1945 and rejoined to serve in Canada during peace time. He received the 1939-1945 Star, the France and Germany Star, the Defence Medal and War Medal 1939-1945. Unfortunately, he has no medical plan, and because his combined income with his wife is more than $1,477 per month, he cannot get help from Veterans Affairs to pay for his glasses or his dental work.

It seems we are constantly dipping into seniors' meagre incomes. For example, a couple of years ago we increased the amount they had to pay for their medical expenses to double what it was before. I phoned the information line to find out what was available to veterans, and I had to pry most of the information out of the people from the other end. Why are Veterans Affairs representatives not more forthcoming? Do they believe they are doing their job as they limit benefit payments to veterans who are entitled to them by not ensuring they are aware? Unfortunately, that is the impression I have been left with through my dealings with them.

• 0905

I made several calls and only once did I reach someone who seemed bubbly and cheerful. The others did not seem to have much patience, and sometimes I felt I was talking to dead air. If I had been a senior trying to find out something, I would have become discouraged and felt a little bit stupid, and most likely would have hung up the phone without getting any information.

I received the books and information they promised to send me in response to my questions, and they are very precise on what is required and are printed in large print, which makes it easy for seniors to read. However, it doesn't say anywhere what the income limit is. That needs to be stated somewhere, even if it is an addendum to put on the front cover to the effect that those who make over this amount need not apply.

I also know that funeral expenses for our veterans are not covered if they are making over the allowable income limit.

Why are we putting a price on our veterans? These people went to war to preserve our way of life and the freedoms we enjoy today. Without those sacrifices, we wouldn't be living this life. There are many things my father and my father-in-law don't talk about, and I know they have nightmares about the war.

Are we going to say to the women who are their wives, when they become widows, “Sorry, we won't bury your dead husbands, who fought for my country and my freedom, because you make just a little bit more than allowed”? By the way, it's less than the low-income level for 1996 that Statistics Canada quoted for a single person.

Let's not count out their money as if they were children on an allowance. Where did we come up with $1,477.67? This means that we, as one of the wealthiest nations in the world, are saying we accept that it is okay for our veterans to try to live on $17,000 annually, which is almost $1,000 below the 1996 level of low income for two, as established by Statistics Canada.

We are doing a grave injustice to many of our veterans. Most veterans are forced to live a modest life with few luxuries because of these policies. We can do better than that. We pay an MP a pension after only six years. We pay senators thousands of dollars for minimal labour. We waste thousands of dollars daily in the running of the government.

We should be honouring our veterans. Let's not just remember them for a few minutes on November 11. Let's look after them now, while we still have them. Let's fight to ensure they enjoy a decent quality of life, as they fought and sacrificed so many years ago to make it possible for Canada to become the best country in the world in which to live. Let's show them in tangible ways that we appreciate what they did for us. Let's pay for their glasses and dental work if need be. Let's bury them with dignity when the time comes. Let's show them respect and say thank you now and tell them, “Not to worry; we will look after you.”

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Captain Deborah March.

Captain Deborah March (Individual Presentation): Thank you very much. I apologize for that brief delay.

I'm Captain Deborah March. I'm the clinical director of military social work on this base. I'm here to address the SCONDVA committee for the second time, and I must say, when I look at the swell in the numbers of people here, I'm really gratified, and I'm gratified to see so many more people on the SCONDVA committee here.

As social workers, we see that our problems certainly include but go far beyond inadequate pay and housing in the military. We can very simply no longer afford to ignore the changing composition of the military family. The family wherein the husband goes to sea and the wife remains at home to care for the children is not the norm. Our military members and their children comprise a microcosm of civilian society and include increasingly single mothers, single fathers, dual military career parents, dual military and civilian career couples, same-sex couples, and families with children who have special needs.

There's a tremendous impact of increased operational deployment on our families at Formation Halifax. The majority of our social work clients do cope adequately with the majority of military demands. However, at times, when the increased demand of military difficulties interferes with their operational effectiveness, we have an obligation to provide support and treatment services that are seen as safe, confidential, and effective in helping them resolve their problems. We have an obligation to invite, to encourage, and to create a climate of openness for our families to access those services.

• 0910

I'd like to talk to you about some patterns and trends since our last presentation to SCONDVA. The patterns and trends I'm going to talk about, I believe, as do the social workers in my office, are due to increased deployments and the increasing exposure of social work in this formation.

Since 1996 there has been an increase of 110% of new social work cases opened. There has been an increase of 140% of case work in social work.

We see a significant increase in the demand from couples for marital counselling. We see a significant increase in the demand from couples for separation and divorce mediation. We are receiving an exponential increase in requests from elementary and junior high school principals for intervention with children of military families due to what they see as an increase in children's behaviour problems throughout parental deployment.

We work closely with clinical social workers at both military family resource centres, and together, we offer a wide variety of individual, couple, family, and group services. The demand for group programming, particularly in the areas of anger management and stress management, is increasing. Anger and stress in the workplace are coming home to military families. As a direct result of SHARP training, referrals of personnel for the assessment of harassment issues are increasing.

We work closely with several civilian counselling agencies in the area and hear from our civilian professional colleagues that they too are seeing an increase in military families accessing counselling services. Our families often prefer to access civilian services due to their perception of a fear of the potential effect on their careers.

Our military women in dual-career couples perceive that they are often forced to leave their military careers when their families are no longer capable of coping with the increased demands of operations. You will be hearing more about that from individual people this morning.

In this climate of downsizing, we recognize that it is no longer possible to consistently post dual-career couples together. Operational requirements sometimes must take precedence over family needs, but there is a very delicate balance to be struck in meeting the needs of our families and the needs of operations. Quite simply, our families need and deserve to be together.

These are our problems as we see them. What are we doing at Formation Halifax to address our problems? First, speaking from a professional social work perspective—and throughout 18 years of military service both in the ranks and as a commissioned officer, and all within Canadian Forces medical systems—we at this formation are receiving unprecedented logistical, financial, and staffing support from medical services, Formation Health Services Unit, and our formation administration branch. All the way from the top down, social workers are receiving support at this formation.

As our case load has increased, as clinical director, so have my demands for increased staff. Those demands have consistently been met. We've increased from two social workers in 1996 to five social workers in 1998. As a direct result of the increase in staff, our ability to provide programming has increased. We now provide programming in anger management—these are group programs, by the way, and are in addition to our individual, couple, family, and group therapy programs—self-esteem, couples groups, and post-United Nations tours support groups.

Just for your information, as a result of the last post-United Nations tours support group, a working paper has been developed by all the members of that group and is currently being staffed up the line at Formation Halifax.

There are harassment support groups, a critical incident stress support group, and a study of the care of injured personnel. No doubt you've heard all throughout the country about the national study of care of injured personnel throughout 1997, which demonstrated the presence throughout the country of pervasive feelings of abandonment from military personnel, wives of military personnel, and widows and orphaned children of deceased military personnel. Quite simply, we need more care. We need more attention. Our past chief of social work services chaired the national study and has made a series of recommendations to achieve national standards of care.

Again, I believe we are doing an adequate job at Formation Halifax. As already identified by Admiral Miller, there is a recognition of the challenges we face right now.

• 0915

Our new day care centre is slated to open on June 1, 1998. That's absolutely wonderful to me. I'm getting a little long in the tooth as a military officer, and that we are getting into the day care business is unprecedentedly progressive. We have 22 spaces for children effective June 1, and we have support from our admiral that we will increase that this fall, if demand supports the increase.

We do have family cabins at Falls Lake. We have significant support from the Judge Advocate General branch for the very complicated psychosocial and legal problems our clients are in. There is a recognition of increased need for increased services from social work officers in uniform.

In 1997, military social workers were advised of the planned decimation of our numbers, at best to 11 uniformed social workers. One year later we are in a position of increasing our members through active current recruiting. At this formation alone, there is a third hard military social work position established. We're receiving excellent performance by our civilian social workers, and we will request a fourth hard military social work position from this formation.

There are increases in demands for social work services from our commanders for individual assessment and treatment, for unit professional development, and for critical incident stress support. Our critical incident stress team at this formation includes 12 leaders and 22 trained peer facilitators. We are on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. Also, a team of 4 of us is currently on rapid-readiness, 24-hour-response standby for the Gulf.

I'd like to make some recommendations from the perspective of the military social workers, civilian social workers, and our client group.

—We need comprehensive psychosocial family screenings prior to lengthy naval deployments. This may prevent the need to repatriate service members due to an increase in family difficulties.

—We need increased resources allocated to prevention rather than treatment.

—We need increased support to our injured and ill military personnel and their families.

—We need increased planning for comprehensive administrative and medical care of our injured peacekeepers, and follow-up for the families when a service member is released or has died. We need national standards for that.

—We need a continuation of and an increase in the kind of support we are beginning to see from our senior officers and non-commissioned senior members at this formation.

—We need a continuation of standards of harassment and anti-racism prevention training. A one-day Standard for Harassment and Racism Prevention workshop is simply not enough. As social workers, we are not only seeing personnel in our office who perceive they are being harassed, we're also seeing personnel who are being accused—sometimes rightly, sometimes erroneously, and sometimes unjustly—of harassment. The effect on personal, unit, and family morale has been devastating. Our social work clients, quite simply, are requiring more service.

—Finally, in the decline of career progression through promotion for our men and women, there must be attention paid to alternate means of recognition for superior performance.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Benoit.

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

Thank you very much for your presentation. You said in your presentation something like there are a lot of people needing help because they have this perception that if they use the military social workers, psychologists and so on, there may be some action taken against them.

First of all, do you think that perception is justified?

Capt Deborah March: In some cases, yes; in most cases, no. My experience on this base in the past two and a half years has been that the senior personnel at this formation are very attentive to the needs of their military personnel—very attentive. And quite frankly, sir, if we don't get what we need from one level, we go to the next level, and we usually do get what we need for our clients.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Where do you think the perception comes from, then?

• 0920

Capt Deborah March: I think it comes from a combination of factors. I think it comes from a lot of talk. If one military member, for example, has been served poorly by his chain of command in years past that goes through the fleet. But I believe currently we are getting the attention we need for our military personnel.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's encouraging.

Capt Deborah March: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: One other thing is that in harassment you've called for more training sessions. I'm wondering how effective that is, and if the only really effective way to deal with harassment, no matter what kind of harassment, is for the commanding officer to just be completely intolerant when it comes to that. Lay it on the line, make it clear, and just not tolerate harassment, period.

Capt Deborah March: Yes, sir, completely and absolutely.

We are getting increased demand from our clients in the social work office as well for standards of investigation of harassment, and that is being attended to at this formation as we speak. We're also getting increased demand from our clients for an investigative system outside the military.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

Capt Deborah March: You're welcome.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Mr. Pratt.

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

I would like to ask you to go out on a limb a little bit and provide us with an educated guess on something. You talked about the issue of psychosocial problems within the military. Taking into account that some of these problems are obviously reported and some are unreported, are you willing to venture a guess as to what percentage of our service people are affected one way or another by problems, whether they're related to marital difficulties, behavioural problems with their kids, for instance, PTSD, the whole range of issues that affect—

Capt Deborah March: Unfortunately, Mr. Pratt, I can't give you an educated guess as to percentages. What I can tell you is that in 1995, when I came to this formation, we were averaging 12 to 18 new cases per month that were opened. That's not including cases that are ongoing in the social work field. Now, for January, February, March and April—in January we had 54 cases opened in this formation and 46 cases in February. March was a slow month—we had only 34 cases opened—and in April we had 49 cases opened. Our open cases have increased, as I said, 110%.

Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers at my disposal to give you a percentage. That's the best I can do.

Mr. David Pratt: Actually that was going to be my next question, the growth in the caseloads. You mentioned prevention as well. An investment in prevention strikes me as an opportunity that's given to us to cut these problems off at the pass.

Capt Deborah March: Yes, sir, absolutely.

Mr. David Pratt: What percentage of your resources are dedicated towards prevention at this point?

Capt Deborah March: I can tell you about 30% across the board. We have five clinicians working in our office. We appear at a wide variety of professional development days. Very recently, in fact, a memo was issued from the admiral's office recommending that all senior commanders consider the inclusion of critical incident stress debriefing and prevention in their professional development days. So we're getting increased calls from commanders for our services in prevention. We also do prevention in terms of stress management and anger awareness. Anger awareness is different from anger management. Anger awareness helps people identify their triggers before they have a problem and it has to go to anger management. So prevention is essential, and, yes, our resources are being allocated towards prevention.

Mr. David Pratt: Finally, do you expect a growth in the demand for day care spaces after you cut the 22?

Capt Deborah March: Absolutely, sir, yes, I do.

Mr. David Pratt: Okay, thank you.

Capt Deborah March: You're welcome.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much.

I'm interested in looking at women's health in this instance. You talk about the interaction with high schools and junior high around problems with kids. Is your staff actually seeing young people? Are they seeing wives? Are they getting together with the mothers of these children? What percentage of time is actually spent working with families, problem-solving with families?

Capt Deborah March: It is 50% of our time. We are the only professionals in the military to have a mandate for what we call family care. Most professionals in the military have a mandate for military personnel care. We have the mandate to care for families. About 50% of our time is spent in direct counselling individual couples, families, and groups with families.

• 0925

We are also making ourselves more visible now in the civilian community. We're going to schools. We're counselling children in schools. We're counselling teachers on how to deal with the increased stress of deployment in schools.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Are you one of the people recommending some phone mercy for families so that they can keep in connection with one another during deployment?

Capt Deborah March: Well I'd certainly not say no to that. Yes, definitely. Yes.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Thank you very much, Captain March.

Capt Deborah March: You're welcome.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Are there any other questions? She seems to be a woman who likes to answer these questions.

Capt Deborah March: Thank you.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Hec Clouthier): Master Seaman Tim Materi.

Master Seaman Tim Materi (Individual Presentation): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, I'm a marine engineer by trade, and now an instructor out at the NBCD school in Purcells Cove.

I asked my wife yesterday about some of the concerns she had. I'm one of those people Captain March refers to. My family has been affected.

I have 6 NATOs under my belt in only 14 years. I'm just starting my 14th year. This has nothing to do with going on specific training—other than that.

I've tried to utilize the services mentioned by Captain March. At the time—this was 1996—there were only two people in the office to help. Captain March was on leave. The only other person there wasn't there at the time.

I ended up having to go and use external resources at that time. Thank God that after a period of time, waiting approximately two months, I was able to go and get my son into counselling.

According to the counsellor the reason my son had to go into counselling for anger management was that dad was not home. I did two NATOs back to back in two years. In that two years I was gone nine and ten months.

For approximately two weeks prior to going on any trip you go through an adjustment at home. You get edgy yourself, because you know what's coming up. Your wife gets edgy, because she knows what's coming up. And if you have young kids, they just don't understand why daddy or mommy is not coming home.

After you get back after a long deployment, especially three months and longer, you find that things have changed at home. They're not the way they used to be. Your wife has become more and more independent. Your kids aren't quite as reactive to you when you come home.

I can give you a couple of instances when I came back. My wife met me on the jetty. At the time my son was five. I bent down to give him a hug and a kiss, and he slapped me across the face, because dad was not there when he needed him.

No doubt you have heard stories similar to this all across the country. Five people in the office to go and help with social work is not enough. More resources have to be put towards it. This is only one indication.

I have a question for the members here. Who commissioned this board?

The Chairman: The Minister of Defence.

MS Tim Materi: Who selected the members?

The Chairman: The different parties.

MS Tim Materi: The different parties themselves?

The Chairman: Yes.

MS Tim Materi: How much longer do you have to tour across this country before you go and give your written report?

The Chairman: This should be the last. We have witnesses in Ottawa next week. I believe we have to go to Borden and Meaford in a couple of weeks, and that will pretty well be it. But we have visited a number of bases across Canada.

MS Tim Materi: I'll be perfectly honest. I don't know how much credibility I'll put behind you people, because I don't know you yourselves.

And in the past we've seen what has happened with these boards. Recommendations have gone to Ottawa, and they've said, yes, very well, very good, thank you very much. When we have the chance we'll get around to looking at this.

I want to know what you people here are going to do in order to fight for us. We are the little people. We can tell you our concerns. What are you folks going to go and do? I ask you this now.

• 0930

The Chairman: As I've indicated in the past, the mandate of the committee right now is to make suggestions to the Minister of Defence, the minister who has asked us to meet with as many people on as many bases as possible. We hope that the majority of recommendations we will be making will be acted upon.

MS Tim Materi: Very good, thank you.

Another concern I have relates to military housing and how it has been degraded to the point where it is now. The purpose of military housing seems to have gone out the window. We are now bringing it up to market-value rent. What is the benefit of military housing for the ordinary seaman, the able seaman, the non-tech killick? It's not there any more.

I myself chose not to take military housing because, believe it or not, I found it cheaper to buy a house and pay a mortgage than to pay rent here in the closed area of the city.

The purpose of military housing seems to be eroded. Why should the ordinary seaman, the able seaman, the non-tech killick have to go and pay market rent? They can't afford it.

This is here on the east coast where it is lower than on the west coast. God, I don't know how I could even afford to live on the west coast. This is utterly ludicrous; it's ridiculous. That was one of the main concerns.

As I said, I do not live in military housing. Due to that, because I've decided not to do so, I had to move a fair distance out of the city, approximately 56 kilometres just travelling one way.

Because I moved out there, it means that my wife cannot take another job. Well, that's not true. She could take another job, but I can't even afford to purchase a used vehicle. How can she take another job when dad's not going to be there the majority of the time for her, which means she's got to get either day care or baby-sitting. By the time she pays for that, what's the benefit of getting that second job? It's not there.

You've all heard about pay. Well, when the first rumours of a pay increase were going around, we were told, yes, there's going to be a pay increase. One of the things I despised about the media at that time—and I still do to this day—is, for example, the fact that the last time it was advertised that we received a 3.2% wage increase.

No, that is not accurate. We did not receive a 3.2% wage increase; we received a 1.2% increase. The 2% was to help bring us up to wage parity with the civil service.

You people doing the typing, was that mentioned in there? No, it wasn't.

Voices: Hear, hear!

MS Tim Materi: There is another thing I want to bring to the attention of the typists up there. When the admiral was up here, he was talking about HMCS Toronto and how the only specialized training they received further on was in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare. That is untrue. We do not deal in nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare; we deal in nuclear, biological, and chemical defence. So you folks go ahead and change that word as well. How do I know this? Because I am an instructor who teaches nuclear, biological, and chemical defence.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, I just thought it might be helpful for some of the people who are here today to understand what the committee has done thus far.

We started our hearings in January. At that point we went up to Yellowknife, we went to Vancouver, over to Esquimalt, up to Comox, to Edmonton, to Cold Lake, to Moose Jaw. We've been to Kingston, Trenton, Val Cartier, Bagotville, Gagetown, Goose Bay, and now here in Halifax.

We're scheduled to go to Bosnia, not next week, but the week following that. We have literally heard— At this point we're close to 500 presentations.

• 0935

As was mentioned by Mr. Bertrand, the Minister of National Defence asked us to undertake this study. I know that the military community has been studied to death over the last couple of years, but this committee is rather unprecedented in terms of, well, its parliamentary nature. This is the first time ever in Canadian history that a parliamentary committee has gone to speak to individual members of the Canadian Forces and asked them about their problems.

I should also add that I don't think the minister would have commissioned this study, or would have asked us to do this, if he had absolutely no intention of acting on a recommendation. You don't raise people's expectations of change and then, from my perspective, leave them flat. I just don't see that this is in the cards.

I think there is a recognition, and I think you're seeing it as a result of the work of the committee, as well. There is a recognition growing across the country that something has to be done to correct some of the problems that we have in the military.

We've seen it recently in terms of some of the media coverage that this committee has had. There is the cover story in Maclean's magazine. It's been on the national news, CTV, CBC, radio news, and in virtually every newspaper in the towns that we've visited.

So I think Canadians are getting a much better understanding of the problems and challenges that are faced by the military that way.

So when we present our report, which will probably be at this point some time in the early fall, the government will have approximately 150 days to respond. I think the presentation of that report, with, at this point, all the thousands of pages of testimony, is going to generate a lot of discussion. It's probably going to generate some controversy, as well. But in the end I think it's going to be beneficial for the people in this country who wear a uniform.

MS Tim Materi: I find that hard to believe.

I have a question. Are these all the members on the committee who have travelled across the country and who are going over to Bosnia, or have they been changing?

The Chairman: There are 15 members on this committee, but these are the ones who usually travel with the committee. These are the ones who will also be going to Bosnia.

You had mentioned that you had appeared before similar committee before, but I must tell you that apart from the meetings we had last year right here in Halifax, I believe—and I stand to be corrected—this is the first time a committee of parliamentarians has gone out and met with all the people on the different bases.

MS Tim Materi: Expectations were mentioned and the fact that your goal was not to raise expectations and let us down. On that note of expectation, let me just say something, and again this is related to pay.

Last year when the pay raise was mentioned, we were told that when the final argument took place over who's going to get what when it comes to the different unions in the government—and we're still waiting for it to be settled—it was mentioned that whatever pay raise we got would be backdated to last April.

Well, according to the last message I read approximately one month ago, they slipped a nice little three-letter word in there now that says “may”. It “may” be backdated. How's that for expectations?

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Master Seaman. You talked about the stress on your family as a result of so much time spent away. We had the admiral today saying that because of the activities of HMCS Toronto and because the crew of the Toronto will have to spend time with their families, in fact that will mean increased activities for others. Will that affect you?

MS Tim Materi: Myself personally?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

MS Tim Materi: I finish up my posting July 6. I'm lucky because I get to spend another year out at Shearwater trying to finally get a chance and an opportunity to learn the second official language.

We did a survey here right now and asked how many people here could speak the second official language. I think you'd be surprised at just how many hands do not go up. We're supposed to be in a leadership role here, folks. This is supposed to be a country where everyone is going to speak both official languages.

• 0940

I ask you members on the board, how many of you can speak both official languages?

Well, there's a fine example for everybody else then.

Voices: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: To be fair, there are quite a few MPs who are bilingual.

MS Tim Materi: I kind of figured as much, that there were quite a fair number of MPs who were bilingual.

Did you know that all the French members who join the Canadian Armed Forces get to go on a five-week English training course? However, do you know that all English-speaking members of the Canadian Armed Forces do not go and get a five-week French course? Why is that?

Mr. Leon Benoit: We've heard that concern about language training expressed before.

But back to the issue of spending so much time away and how that impacts the family— I can imagine that it would have an incredible impact and be very difficult in those circumstances.

You talked about the importance of social workers, and that there are not enough social workers to help. Can you explain to me how social workers would actually help? What do they do that helps? What did they do that helped you or your family?

MS Tim Materi: I did not have the opportunity to go. When I did go and ask the military social services for help at that time I was not able to get it. I had to go to outside resources.

Since that time, in about a year and half, when I approached them things had improved dramatically, from what I understand.

What I received from outside sources was how to deal with stress situations. My wife received help on how to deal more effectively as a single parent, because she is a single parent the majority of the time. We also received help on how my son can go and deal with anger management himself. Just being able to have somebody there to go and talk to—

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you feel the service they provide has been very helpful to—

MS Tim Materi: I cannot comment on the services provided by the military. When I went to use them they were not there. However, outside, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. I just have a final comment. You expressed your concern very strongly that you're afraid that nothing will come from this committee, as a result of the committee.

MS Tim Materi: I wouldn't say that. I don't know if I have the confidence in the committee, from what I've seen from previous committees.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, and I understand your skepticism. Their record isn't good.

First, this committee isn't working for the minister. This committee is the House of Commons committee so it is working for the House of Commons, and it will report to the House. We have members from all political parties.

I hope and I believe that the report will reflect what we've heard. I do think that because of the public pressure and because of the media attention that has been paid to this committee, Canadians are finding out more about some of the things that are wrong.

I believe that does put pressure on the government to act. But certainly in the end you're absolutely right that it is completely up to the government of the day to determine what they do with the report.

We can have the best report in the world, but it is up to the government to decide whether they're going to act on it or not, and that, of course, I don't know.

I don't think they know yet, but I do believe that the pressure and just bringing these issues out to the public so the pubic knows a lot better about what's going on will have an impact.

MS Tim Materi: Well, we'll see.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess I'd like to speak to that issue as well. I am sitting here listening to new things that I have never heard before, and I think the media here in this town are— I think we are changing the images that people have in their minds. I don't think that ever disappears.

You say that will be slipped under the table. I don't believe it will. I think that you have several new allies in this. You have your MPs who will now be watching very carefully as to how this information is digested and how it is brought forward in report form. If it's a whitewash, then there's a lot of people who can scream bloody murder on this. You have people who will now be moving this forward publicly, and I will certainly be one of them.

• 0945

You do have your members of Parliament, who you're going to have to go to and demand that more action get taken on this. As MP for Dartmouth, I'm it, and there are certainly people right here in Halifax: Alexa McDonough, Gordon Earle, and Peter Stoffer. They are also going to be watching this very carefully, as will all the MPs across the country who are seeing the results of this report. They have to be responsible to you.

MS Tim Materi: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Most of my questions have been answered. Maybe I'll just ask one thing, though. You said right now you're living in private housing 56 kilometres out.

MS Tim Materi: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Were you in the PMQs?

MS Tim Materi: No.

Mr. David Price: Okay, you've always been—

MS Tim Materi: Do you know why? Because, believe it or not, my wife would not let us. My wife had seen and heard enough horror stories. Yes, financially it would have alleviated a lot of burden off me, because at the time they were subsidized and it was much lower.

Mr. David Price: Okay. I was just wondering about it, because in the PMQs, would you not have social workers when you were apart? Would you not get more support when you were deployed, or at least would she not get more support?

MS Tim Materi: No.

Mr. David Price: From friends and—

MS Tim Materi: No. I don't know if you yourselves have even gone and toured military housing. Have you?

Mr. David Price: Oh, yes.

MS Tim Materi: Have you seen the size of them?

Mr. David Price: We have.

MS Tim Materi: Have you been down to Shannon Park?

Mr. David Price: Not this particular one, but we've been visiting them across the country.

MS Tim Materi: Maybe you should come down and take a look at Shannon Park and Windsor Park and just take a look at the size of the housing that families—I don't mean you and your mate; I mean families—are expected to live in and pay market rent for.

Mr. David Price: We realize the housing is a major problem. In fact the admiral mentioned that housing is number two on his list. It seems to be, across the country, pretty clear that that's one of the major dissatisfiers.

Okay, thank you.

MS Tim Materi: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, David.

[Translation]

Mr. Lebel, do you have a question?

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yes.

With regard to your question, namely what the government plans to do with this committee's report, this is my second term in Parliament. I was there in 1993, and re-elected in 1997, and I've seen a lot of committee reports. Up to now, I didn't share the enthusiasm of my colleagues from the traditional parties, but in this case, we've heard General Baril and General Dallaire, who came to Ottawa to see us and hear us, and apologize before the committee. I think they are facing the facts and they recognize that they have to— General Dallaire stressed the fact that the emphasis had to be placed on human resources. They knew the newspapers were talking about the troops' morale.

I sincerely believe that the government, voluntarily or otherwise, is going to have to do something—we still count on its good faith and I hope it will do so willingly—because the situation has become catastrophic. That's all I had to say.

[English]

MS Tim Materi: Well, Mr. Lebel, I hope you're correct in what you say, and I hope that finally, yes, they are going to address these problems.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for you presentation.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Corporal Dave Tremblay.

• 0950

Corporal Dave Tremblay (Individual Presentation): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen of the panel. I'm Corporal Tremblay from the HMCS St. John's and I'm an RMS clerk. I have two points on pay, the recent and the past pay adjustments.

I was medically remustered in 1995. I was a sergeant in the artillery, and because I was medically remustered, I was granted vested rights to pay at my old rank. I have not received any pay adjustments since 1991. My last incentive increase was 1992.

I was wondering why an officer cadet who was an NCM before received all the pay adjustments, all the economic pay adjustments, and all the incentives from their prior rank when they voluntarily gave up their rank, whereas I had no choice in it. It was, “You're going there. You're a corporal now and that's it. Deal with it.”

Second, I have a possible solution to the non-commissioned members' pay. If you look at our standard pay guides right now, you'll notice that we have four incentives for each of our ranks. We'll take the corporal and master corporal. With the present way things are going with the forces in terms of service and whatever, a corporal can retire as a corporal after 20 years. He has four incentives, four years of getting $20 every year. There are 12 years left in his career after four years. If he's not promoted, he has 12 years of nothing to look forward to—no pay increases, no nothing.

Whereas an officer— We'll take the captain rank, which has 10 incentives. He can be a captain for 10 years. If he gets promoted to major, he has another seven incentives. And they do not overlap, whereas with the corporal and the master corporal rank, they do overlap. So in theory, the most you can get is maybe seven incentives before you retire, whereas for a captain to a major, that's 17. Their terms of service are a bit different—they have to do 25 years' service; we have to do 20—but still, the comparison is not there.

We'd like to see more incentives for the corporal rank and the master corporal rank, which are basically the working ranks now of the Canadian Forces.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Leading Seaman Jim Karl? Okay.

Joy Smith?

Ms. Joy Smith (Individual Presentation): Good morning.

Before I present my report, I'd just like to share with you a little bit of my background. I'm a born and raised military brat and proud of it. I've been a military spouse for 20 years and am just as proud of that. I've just begun my fourth year as president and board chair of the Debert Military Family Resource Centre, and I'm extremely honoured to do so.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to present the concerns of the military families from the Debert community.

For today's purpose, our report will focus on the impact to quality of life for military families as a result of downsizing in the Canadian Forces. The information presented today has been gleaned from the minutes of a number of public meetings held over the past three years in the CFB detachment, Debert community. We have chosen to focus on the impact of downsizing in relation to quality of life, as we feel that it presents unique and specific implications for military families.

Background of the Debert community is detailed in our written report and copies have been provided for each of you. In summary, Debert is a military community that has gone from 350 military personnel to 56 military families.

When downsizing began, the Department of National Defence informed members' families that cutbacks would result in the necessity for the reduction or elimination of many support services that did not directly relate to the core function of defence. This is understandable in today's economic climate. However, we believe that during these times of difficult decisions, reductions, massive changes, and negative media coverage, sincere and direct consideration must be given to the repercussions of such actions and decisions and their impact on military families.

• 0955

We would like to reiterate the general concerns you have heard today about job insecurity, child care issues, finances, housing, opportunity for employment of spouses and teens, opportunities for quality education, and impact of negative media coverage.

In consideration of these issues, we would like to state that the issue is not about special treatment, but rather fair and appropriate consideration being given to any family that chooses to provide a service for the betterment of their fellow man in any manner. If your chosen profession takes you away from your family and moves you about on a regular basis and affects the education of your children, the employability of your spouse, the level of scrutiny to which you and your family must be subjected, and the possibility of the loss of your life in completion of your duties, then you should be given these considerations.

Military families know that in order for any group of public service employees to get their concerns noted and addressed, they have to be willing to subject their situation to public scrutiny. However, the recent media coverage of the challenges that some military families are experiencing has totally neglected to present what military families are doing for themselves.

In more detail, we would like to share with you the specific issues related to downsizing.

In Debert we have lost our facilities—for example, our rec centre, our social centre, our teen club, our chapel, our rations and quarters, and our kitchen services. We have lost all of our recreational clubs except for one. We have lost all our social services in respect to military, such as our padre services, PERI staff, and PSP services. We have no local orderly room services, no bus or transport services, no financial counselling, and no military police presence. Busing of elementary school children that was provided by Department of National Defence was lost and resulted in local families having to lobby for local school board provision of busing.

CFB Halifax has worked hard to provide key services to our families. However, the fact that we live 125 kilometres from the personnel who provide such services poses a challenge. These already overworked individuals find it very difficult if not impossible to spend quality time with families in Debert unless we travel to see them. In addition, we no longer have any standard, routine information, and in our 1995 annual needs survey for the family resource centre, it indicated that 50% of the families felt they had not been kept well enough informed about downsizing issues.

Another issue is the impact on career opportunities for spouses. Career opportunity is always an issue, but it intensifies during downsizing.

Debert military families have faced a great deal of uncertainty, and it has been this way for a considerable amount of time. There is uncertainty about the long existence of various units, and the uncertainty about housing has been prolonged for almost two full years.

In respect of housing, there is still, after one full year, no signed agreement between Canadian Forces Housing Agency and Colchester Park Development Society with respect to the handover of maintenance issues for military housing. For more than a year now, our military families have been told point-blank by Canadian Forces Housing Agency that capital repairs and upgrading to their homes would not occur, as it was not a priority due to the fact that the homes are being transferred to a development society.

In our struggle to identify the housing concerns of the military families, several meetings were held and issues documented and forwarded. For almost an entire year, it appears, decisions were being made with no regard to these concerns. Maintenance of housing has continued to be an ongoing issue. Promises have been made to keep the tenants informed of decisions impacting on them, and we are still having difficulty in that respect.

Isolation: During the two years following the announcement of the closure of CFS Debert, military families indicated that they felt cut off from the military. It's very difficult to determine who was responsible for what. The length of time it took to get answers, information, claims, and decisions was considerable. The fact that we are physically 125 kilometres away from support services poses a challenge. The apparent loss of security and the fact that the community at large was aware of this bothered many families.

• 1000

For almost six months, over half the former PMQs sat empty. In what was once a very secure and closely monitored community, there were now no restrictions as to who could come into the housing area, who could be knocking at your door or driving on your street.

On more than one occasion the FRC received phone calls from concerned parents who watched as complete strangers drove through their neighbourhood with video cameras and videotaped parks and playgrounds while our children played there. A simple notification to the families, and a means of having such prospective companies, local development agencies and ACOA officials formally escorted with identifiable military personnel would have helped to overcome the fear of many parents.

Lack of input and control over our own destiny: For over three years there has been a feeling of being on the outside looking in. Local agencies met and discussed issues affecting the community that our military families lived in. Local development associations kept taking over the property. Lack of official military presence at local committee meetings and having to cope with reading about the future of your community in the paper or hearing it on the radio are just some examples.

Commuting: Downsizing has resulted in necessary, temporary commuting for many families and unexpected moves for others. This has caused unexpected separations from the family for the member. We face travelling 250 kilometres round-trip to pick up important originals of documents, cheques, to see doctors, financial counsellors, social workers, and padres, and to conduct business and financial affairs on a day-to-day basis.

Being a 20-minute drive from essential services such as hospitals, emergency, police, medical clinics, dentist's office, and banking is difficult and poses a challenge when the member works a further 20- to 30-minute drive away from the housing area and is required to take the family vehicle to work.

Loss of our volunteer base: The significant reduction in families has had an impact on the ability to deliver the community functions and recreational events necessary to keep families together, spirits high, and stress down. This places a heavy burden on members and their families to keep what is left going while still trying to cope with the heavily tasked workload at their regular jobs.

Loss of child care options: Downsizing has resulted in the necessary closure of the preschool and loss of available teens and in-home child care due to the reduced numbers in the community.

The quality of our education: The impact of the downsizing has greatly affected the quality of education being received by military children at the elementary school level. This has resulted in military children at three different levels being placed in classrooms of as many as 34 children, with two grades being taught by one teacher.

Canadian military families have made a personal decision to live with the requirements of the unique lifestyle and challenges presented by employment with the Canadian Forces. Transiency, deployments, and fear of the loss of a loved one are all part of the bargain.

When these are compacted with complications, frustrations, and uncertainties of downsizing, life becomes that much more stressful and difficult to deal with. Special consideration and commitment to the provision of support and empathy on the part of all levels of the Department of National Defence must be given to these families.

In addition to facing reduced local services, massive changes in our community, uncertainty about our future, and general financial challenges, Debert's military families have had to cope with negative media coverage, poor public image of their chosen profession, and having to shoulder the anger and resentment of the local community due to the economic impact of downsizing.

It is also important to note that the downsizing can be a relatively long and drawn-out process. Many questions identified in meetings held in 1995 had not been clearly answered until 1997-98. The uncertainty has existed for more than three years.

Today, we have presented the realities of the impact of downsizing on military families. We also want to take the time to share with you the positive results of an excellent program designed to address and assist military families with these challenges. For the past three years of operation, the Debert Military Family Resource Centre has focused on assisting military families through downsizing.

• 1005

In Debert, military families have been fortunate that their family resource centre has remained intact. Other downsizing communities were not so lucky. Regardless of the fact that there is a DMFS directive encouraging local commanders to maintain their family resource centre as one of the last support services to be cut during a downsizing, several military communities did not comply, and the family resource centre doors closed as much as six months before families were posted out.

Recent attempts to standardize services through military family support and to articulate funding formulas for the support of the 40-plus centres across the country and overseas are to be commended. However, establishing funding formulas based on the number of families in a given area poses difficulties. There must be leeway given to allow for a minimum level of funding to ensure that minimum standards can be met.

The only constant for military families in Debert over the past two and a half years has been the existence of the family resource centre. There have been discussions about the reduction in family support services in the amalgamation of the Debert FRC with the Halifax FRC.

The Department of National Defence and CFB Halifax are to be commended for their final decision to maintain the family resource centre at the local level. This has directly resulted in the ability of military families to voice their collective concerns, come together to resolve issues and problems at the local level, and to participate in family functions that are aimed at reducing stress and providing positive experiences. Last year alone, Debert military families contributed almost 2,000 volunteer hours to improve the quality of life for their families.

We have four key recommendations that we would like to present to SCONDVA.

1) that SCONDVA articulate to Parliament the need for increased funding designated specifically for military family support programs at all Canadian Forces bases and stations. The need for additional dollars is essential to ensure that military family support requirements are not forced to compete with the need for equipment, personnel, and other direct defence costs.

The director of military family support must be enabled to deliver, implement, and evaluate a strategic marketing campaign that addresses not only the need to market what is available to families, but that also addresses the social marketing issues around perceived repercussions of accessing these services.

2) that SCONDVA articulate the need for adherence to DMFS family resource centre closure reduction guidelines, paragraphs 2 and 6, which state:

Since the focus of the MFSP [Military Family Support Program] is support to families wherever they are located, it is recommended that reductions in staff at FRCs [Family Resource Centres] be staged to coincide with family departures. Local FRC [Family Resource Centre] should be one of the last units on the Base/Station to close.

and that

The focus of the Military Family Support Program is support to families, wherever they are located.

With this focus in mind, closure reduction activities should only minimally impact on families or the ability of the military family support program to support them. We recommend that rather than being a directive, this should become a CFAO.

3) that SCONDVA articulate the need for special consideration by the Department of National Defence for the impact of downsizing on the quality of life for military families. This could possibly be addressed by the appointment of an OPI to deal specifically with downsizing implications in relation to their impact on military families.

In addition, SCONDVA should advocate to ensure that special financial consideration is given to downsizing communities when budgets are approved for military family support. If minimum standards are to be enforced, then there should be a minimum amount to enable a small centre to meet those standards. The amount must take into consideration the factors that small centres face—less ability to fund-raise, less opportunity to acquire grants and charitable donations, less volunteer manpower to deliver programs and services, just to mention a few.

4) that SCONDVA support the recommendation of DMFS as contained in their submission dated March 13, 1997, which reads:

—it may now be time to seek authority to use some public funds to support some child care options under some circumstances.

—it may be time to consider some form of direct assistance to Canadian Forces spouses at the time of posting. An entitlement to professional employment-finding assistance, to upgrading training, to language training, or to home-based business start-up assistance— [with] authority to use public funds in this area—

• 1010

We hope that by sharing the issues discussed by families in Debert and by articulating the importance of family support services, your committee will do all that is possible to ensure that future downsizing bases are able to maintain an appropriate level of family resource centre services to assist the families during this difficult and challenging time. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. I have a very short question for you.

We've heard across Canada how hard it is for spouses to find jobs when the husband or wife is posted to another base, but I think this is the first time we've heard of the problem with teens. Can you tell me how widespread that problem is?

Ms. Joy Smith: I can only give you information based on the facts as they present themselves with our community.

Debert at one time was considered a semi-isolated posting, which means we do not have direct access to things like public transportation. We do not have a large economic base. The opportunities for employment are very limited due to the location. Employment for teens would require a 15-minute drive into the town of Truro. Because there is no public transportation they require a vehicle, which most teens in the area do not have access to. Most times the family vehicle, if they are of age to drive, is with the member or the spouse at their place of employment.

The best statistic for teen employment in our area is baby-sitting because right now they are so few of them. If you want to baby-sit, you've got a job every night.

As far as trying to establish employment with respect to a career, it's extremely difficult, mostly because of where we are.

The Chairman: Just another point of clarification. In your brief you mentioned that the Canadian Forces Housing Agency is going to transfer some of its PMQs to the Colchester Park Development Society.

Ms. Joy Smith: Yes.

The Chairman: Is that a sale?

Ms. Joy Smith: The Colchester Park Development Society was set up to take over the running of the property, which was CFS Debert property once the armed forces left.

I believe it was handed over. There was no official sale. Of the 120 PMQs in the Debert area, all but 40 have already been turned over to the local development society and rented out to civilians. The Canadian Forces Housing Agency still has 40 in its care that are occupied by military families, and they have contracted out the maintenance of those houses to a private company.

For a full year now they have been in negotiation with the Colchester Park Development Society to take over the maintenance of these houses. I believe the last deadline was March 1997, but we still haven't heard that a contract has been finalized.

The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Joy Smith: Thank you for your time.

The Chairman: Ms. Smith, Mr. Benoit has a question.

• 1015

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Smith. I was particularly pleased that you had recommendations in there.

You mentioned that you were raised as a military brat and were proud of that, and have been a military spouse for 20 years and are proud of that. So your whole life has been in the military family.

Ms. Joy Smith: Yes, it has.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Over that time what changes have taken place, starting with the general morale of men and women in the forces?

Ms. Joy Smith: When my husband and I were first married—within the first three years of our marriage we were posted to Debert, and five years ago we returned. As a junior NCO in a driving, self-contained facility that Debert was at that time, I felt that morale was good, that there was an overall sense of community there. We knew what was expected of us. We knew pretty well how things would go. There was a sense of security that you could wake up in the morning and know there wasn't going to be any— You knew you were going to work and that life would go on.

That sense of security is no longer there, and all of the things we clung to along the line, which was there's housing if we need it, counselling if we need it, the fact that they'll always be a job for the member—these things have been slowly chipped away and taken away from us. The downsizing only intensified that, because we saw these things slowly being taken away from us with no consideration to who was left and how we were going to manage to keep going.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So it must really hurt when you see something like the quote you used in your brief—“you knew what you were getting into, so if you don't like it, get out”.

Ms. Joy Smith: Exactly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That must be really hurtful.

Ms. Joy Smith: It is hurtful, and it has been said to me personally.

I'm going back to when my husband joined the military and we were married. Neither of us realized at that time that we wouldn't be able to make ends meet with what he earned. The fact that we sat and waited for two weeks, day on end, to find out whether he was going to the Gulf—as I sat and consoled the friend whose husband was chosen to go to the Gulf— That is part of the life and I accept that, but as far as knowing what I was getting into— I knew what my mother was getting into because I was there while she was living it, but I don't think I bargained for some of the things we're dealing with now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How do you feel that the way the media treats and reports on the military has changed over that time?

Ms. Joy Smith: With respect to the media, I understand that in order to sell, they have to sensationalize. I accept that, but I would like to respond by giving an example about the recent issue of Maclean's that came out with all the stories about the military families.

Mr. Jim Jamieson in the military family support directorate responded to that article and asked why it sensationalized all the negative aspects of military family life. He asked why there was no adjoining article stressing what family resource centres are doing for military families, and what families are doing for themselves. Military family support and social services agencies are extremely important, but there are spouses out there who are saying we're not going to accept this any more and there are things we can do.

• 1020

The media can justify their sensationalism for the sake of sales, but with respect to people's lives, there should have been more than a six-line paragraph on what families are doing for themselves.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you.

Finally, how do you think the Canadian public's view of men and women in the forces, and the Canadian military, has changed over that time?

Ms. Joy Smith: Before Somalia I would say that the general public, unless they lived close to a base or a station, were generally indifferent to the military. They knew they were there and that was about it. There are a lot of preconceived notions that are wrong. For example, I've had people tell me that I live rent free, that I don't pay taxes, and that my heat and lights are paid for. Can I get into that military? The thoughts of the general public before Somalia were either indifference or based on misinformation.

After that there was some finger pointing and anger. It was a little more difficult to stand up straight and look someone straight in the eye and say my husband's in the military. That's why we wear invisible ribbons. I wear mine every day. When someone asks me what it's for, I tell them with great pride that it shows I support the Canadian military, its members, and their families. Even though it's the member who wears the uniform, it's the family that lives the life, and that's what most people don't see.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Captain Sean Taylor.

Captain Sean Taylor (Individual Presentation): Good morning, sir.

I'm so used to just ma'am and sir for people who are above my rank that I kind of fall into that.

I'm going to cut it short. I've given this to you in written form and I don't want to take up too much time, so I don't want to go into the full three pages.

I believe there is a need for an ombudsman outside the military. There is currently a system in the military to redress problems, differences or injustices that are felt by a member. It is called the redress of grievance. However, and I can tell you through an acquaintance of mine, that subtle repercussions go on when you put in a redress of grievance, especially if someone is embarrassed by it.

I have been living with a problem for the last year and a half. Next month I'm going to put in a redress of grievance over it. I fully expect that there may be some fallout from it, but I can't handle this problem by myself any more. I need to get rid of it.

I also know that there are people who are afraid to come forward and speak for fear of those retributions, so they live with those injustices. They don't want to rock the boat. They don't want to be the next person marked for downsizing, to be got rid of from the squadron or from where they work, or to be posted out of the base. It's for those people that I think we need an ombudsman, someone who can help them outside of the military, and, should they feel there are subtle repercussions going on after their redress, that they have a place to go and further complain to.

That's the gist of my presentation.

• 1025

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, do you have a question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I can't remember the question I was going to ask, but on the ombudsman, your idea of an ombudsman is someone completely outside the military to redress a grievance. Is that correct?

Capt Sean Taylor: I expect we'd still have redress available to us within the military, but as I say there are people who are afraid of that process because you do expose yourself to everyone who is involved in your little injustice. They need a voice where they can remain anonymous for a while until they find out what they can actually do and have done for them to help them with their injustice.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Would your idea of an ombudsman be someone not necessarily of last resort, but when an individual has a problem, concern or grievance and doesn't feel comfortable going through the system, as a first step they could go to the ombudsman and try to work it out? Would the ombudsman be a go-between to deal with the grievance?

Capt Sean Taylor: That might be the best thing to do. I don't know how else to tell you this except that there are people who are afraid to come forward in the present system, and I do know people who are under these subtle repercussions. I don't want to go into that any further because they've asked me not to. I tried to get them to come here but they're still afraid to talk, even to you. We've been told that we can expect no repercussions for what we tell you, but they're still afraid to come forward.

Whether someone as a last resort or someone to go to first—you feel you may have repercussions in airing your grievance, someone to go to besides your chain of command. At the moment we can go outside our chain of command. If I had a grievance based on a human rights issue, I could go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. However, while the Human Rights Commission is dealing with that, any grievance I have made to the armed forces prior to that is put on hold until the human rights commission finishes and then the forces may get involved back in it. I'm not sure what the further carry-on would be.

It would be someone to approach when you're afraid to start a redress.

Mr. Leon Benoit: The Somalia commission recommended an independent inspector general completely outside the military to deal with broad military issues. Someone yesterday suggested that there should be an individual on each base. Maybe that would be more like the ombudsman you're talking about. Perhaps that person could be under the authority of the independent inspector general. It would all fit together.

So I do understand what you're saying here and I appreciate your presentation.

Thank you.

Capt Sean Taylor: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

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

I don't have any firm views on whether or not an ombudsman would be the proper route to go in terms of dealing with complaints, but let me play the devil's advocate here in terms of going outside of the chain of command with respect to dealing with personnel problems.

Doesn't it really come down to a question of leadership? Anyone who's in a leadership position, whether it's a captain, a major, a colonel or whatever, if they're having problems with one or more of the people under their command and there's a continuing history of problems between that leader and their particular subordinates, doesn't that indicate a problem as far as how they deal with their people?

To pursue that a little further, it seems to me that you're not really solving the problem, not really getting at the root of the issue. If, instead of a subordinate confronting a superior officer, you shuttle that off to a third party and let them look into it, it seems to me that you will still have the same problem in terms of difficulties with further promotion, because sooner or later the individual who is the source of the problem will find out and there will have to be an investigation.

• 1030

I guess what I'm getting at here, slowly but surely, is the fact that unless the two people who have the problem deal with it together rather than pushing it off to a third party, you're going to have a retrenchment in the positions of those involved. Is that not a possibility in this whole scenario as far as an ombudsman goes?

Capt Sean Taylor: It is and it isn't. The ombudsman must have the power available to him then to enforce any decisions he's made, and perhaps if there has been a systemic problem, then the whole unit has to be looked into at some point.

There are always going to be personality differences. Part of the problem, though, with what happens in the military is, I can complain to my boss and say I don't like this, and he can say, “You're perfectly right. I'm going to go talk to my boss about it.” And his boss can say, “No, sorry, that's not a problem. I don't want to hear about it.” My only avenue at that point is to open up a redress.

I've been in the forces for 15 years and I've watched the old boys' network work, and it works quite well, sir, if you embarrass them. They will get even with you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. David Pratt: But embarrassing someone and attempting to work with them to resolve a problem can be two different things.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Capt Sean Taylor: But there's no attempting to work out a problem with a senior officer, sir. It's his decision. If he doesn't like what you're saying, he will tell you that, and that's the end of it, unless you want to pursue a redress, at which point you open up the old boys' network again, because now you're pushing it past him and you're exposing the problem outside the unit. It's no longer hidden within the unit.

Mr. David Pratt: But surely there are different leadership styles within the military as well.

Capt Sean Taylor: There are.

Mr. David Pratt: Some people are more communicative and more consultative in dealing with the problems of their subordinates; some would probably be more autocratic and dictatorial.

Capt Sean Taylor: As far as I'm concerned, my boss has tried to help me as best he can, and he's essentially been squashed. It's now up to me to write a redress and start pushing it up through. I have to start with him, even though he can't do anything for me, and he's admitted that. It then moves up to his boss, and if I don't like the answer from there, I can push it up again.

When I push it up to that third level, though, I'm leaving my local area. I'm now moving off my wing and opening this problem up to everybody in the military to see. And that can be an embarrassment, especially if it is a real injustice that's been done to me.

I'll actually give you a hint here of what's going on. I was asked to temporarily help out another unit. In the military, “temporary” means six months. I was told—and you'll find this in my written presentation—that it would be duties of augmenting headquarters staff during exercises within Canada. I agreed to help them out. The place I was leaving was running short of people. My new boss agreed it wouldn't be a problem for me to help them over the six months, and if I was deployed for one or two weeks in these exercises, that wasn't going to hurt anything.

It was November 1996 on a Friday afternoon when I found out I was going to Rwanda for six months—when I found out exactly what all of this incurred. I went back and asked about this, and nobody knew this was a deployable position. Nobody even then bothered to come back and ask me if I would really want to volunteer for this duty. I joined the air force.

I'm not saying I don't want to serve my country. I'm very proud to. Read my first paragraph, please. I'm very proud of what I do. I love what I do. I didn't have a problem, actually, wearing my uniform around during the Somalia incident. I still wanted to, because I believed in it and I believed it had to be seen so that people knew there were others of us out there.

I've tried to get out of this problem. If I put in my redress and it's successful, I'll finally be out of this temporary duty, 21 months later. That's the other side of my complaint. They asked me to do it for six months, and it will be 21 months before I'm out of it. In fact the unit I'm supposed to work with for this duty even suggests that individuals are only supposed to be on it for a year on a call-out list, and then they move to a secondary call-out list.

I know I'm going to be causing embarrassment, because I helped two individuals on a short-notice deployment by accepting it. Because I accepted that deployment, in the end I ended up making myself available for further deployment, because I was being a nice guy. It's gotten to the point now where I can't see myself getting off this and no one wants to let me off it, because I've been such a nice guy about it.

• 1035

I've tried to get off. I've tried to talk to my boss. I've told you what's happened with that. Now I'm going to have to go through the redress. And I'm serious: I'm quite fearful about this, about the repercussions that may go on. That's part of the reason I decided to come here and talk to you, because we were told if we came and talked to you, there could be no repercussions about what we said. You're a bit of a shield for me, as a matter of fact.

That's part of why I think we should have an ombudsman, as a shield—someone who can watch what then goes on for someone who has an injustice and complains about it and has it fixed, someone who can make sure they don't have retribution brought against them.

I hope I've answered your questions.

Mr. David Pratt: I think you have. As I say, I don't have really firm views on it one way or another, but you've shed a bit of light on it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Capt Sean Taylor: Thank you for your time, sir.

Voices: Hear, hear!

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, we'll now hear our last witness, Corporal Mario Castonguay.

[English]

Corporal Mario Castonguay (Individual Presentation): I'm going to address you in French, because my English is not that good.

[Translation]

My name is Mario Castonguay. I'm a corporal and I've been a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for more than 17 years. I asked to appear before the committee so that I could talk about my health problems.

For the past year, I have suffered from back problems. The Canadian Armed Forces tried to cure me with physiotherapy treatments. After six months' treatment, the therapist gave me a letter for my physician, informing him that physiotherapy couldn't do anything for me and that I'd have to have an operation.

I can testify to the efficiency of the military, where it was seen to that I received a physiotherapy consultation as promptly as possible. The quality of the services and the number of appointments I was given were outstanding, since these services are still available in military hospitals. But it's afterwards that things go wrong. On account of all the budget cuts suffered by the Canadian Armed Forces, it is no longer possible to be operated on by an Armed Forces surgeon, as it used to be in the large military hospitals in Ottawa, Halifax and Valcartier. I even wrote a letter which I addressed to the chain of command to find out whether the Armed Forces could not speed up the process. I was answered that I couldn't be operated on any faster unless my state of health worsened. Personally, I find that completely ridiculous.

When I decided to serve my country 17 years ago, there were pros and cons. But I nevertheless enrolled in the Armed forces. Among the advantages was the fact that there was no fooling around on the medical side. We knew that if something happened to us, the army would take care of us and get us back on our feet as quickly as possible. Now, everything's changed.

I'll describe to you what I underwent in physiotherapy. They began by giving me a month of medical leave, following which I went back to work every other day. Now I'm just working half-days. I was supposed to take two Tylenol 3 pills and two Ibuprofen three times a day, and one Reactine. I took these pills for three months and I had to stop because I became unbearable. My wife found me grumpy, edgy and very aggressive, not to mention all the other health problems caused by this medication.

Now I'm living with the pain. There are mornings when I need up to half an hour to get out of bed. All I take now is two Tylenol 3s when I go to bed. My children and my wife find me easier to get along with that way. I sleep nearly every afternoon after work so that I can realign my back, so to speak. But if I pick up my two-year-old son to play with him, I feel it afterwards and I have to lie down to get things back in place. Otherwise, I get all bent over and I have a hard time walking.

As far as my pride is concerned, with regard to my fellow workers and at home, it hurts not to be able to do much. It's very hard on the morale.

• 1040

I don't think giving medication to someone so that they no longer feel the pain is a good long-term solution. The Canadian Armed Forces should have kept the exceptional level of service they offered in their hospitals. This was one of the good things about military life, that is, knowing that if ever we had a health problem, the Canadian Armed Forces would take care of us as quickly as possible.

I hope that my testimony will help your committee and that some improvements will be made in the medical area of the Canadian Armed Forces. I wouldn't wish what I'm going through right now on anyone.

I still don't know when they're going to operate on me. I find it hard to live day by day, without being able to plan a vacation, for instance. If I plan a vacation for such and such a date, that may be when the civil hospital calls me to tell me I have to go for my operation. If I left, I'd lose my turn.

Here's what I don't understand. Why don't the Canadian Armed Forces have the power to control when one of its own members is going to have such and such an operation? Am I to conclude that if the specialist or surgeon is busy for the next two years, I'll only get my operation in two years? This situation has to be remedied as soon as possible, not only for me, but also for all the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

To conclude, I'd like to add that, in my heart, I chose to serve my country and that I'm not asking for a lot in exchange: just a bit of recognition and respect for the human being that I am. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Corporal. Have you notifed your superiors of your back problem?

Cpl Mario Castonguay: As I said, I sent a memo to the chain of command. My commander met with the base sergeant. All they can say to me is that they can't do anything because a civil surgeon has to operate on me. We have to wait. The only way they could speed up the process is if my state got worse. It doesn't make any sense.

The Chairman: Are you doing the same work now as before?

Cpl Mario Castonguay: No. I'm usually responsible for making sure the computers on the base are running properly. Right now, the only thing I do is stay in my office, answer the phone and direct calls, working half-days. As you can see, it's a waste of time and effort since, because of my absence, my coworkers have more to do. We don't know when it will end. That's what's tiresome. If at least a date was set and I knew I was going to have my operation on September 9, for example, I'd know what to expect.

I call them every month. This month, I called again and I was told the May schedule was full, but that the June schedule wasn't yet completed. In February, the first time I consulted the civil physician, he told me that the operation would take place the same month. I called him at the end of February and his secretary told me that she still couldn't give me a date, but that probably it would be in March. Then, on March 9, I called back and she told me it wouldn't be in March or April since the schedule was already full up. I waited until May and I was told again that it was full and that the June schedule was not yet prepared. You can waste a lot of time like that. I've only got three years left till the end of my career. Will I get my operation before I complete 20 years of service?

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Cpl Mario Castonguay: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, this brings a close to our meetings in Halifax. I want to thank the admiral and everyone else for making our stay here as enjoyable as it was, and also you people for coming out and getting your points and views across. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.