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]

Thursday, May 28, 1998

• 1910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to welcome you to our town hall meeting this evening on how to improve the quality of life for our military personnel.

We had a good number of people who came to us this afternoon, and I'm sure we will get as many people to come up this evening.

There are just a few housekeeping things for you this evening.

[Translation]

Interpretation receivers are available at the back of the room. Sharon is the person distributing them.

[English]

Just to explain to you how we will be conducting the evening session, we already have four people who want to make presentations. If there is anybody else who is interested in making a presentation, I would ask you to give your names to Sharon. This is strictly for administrative purposes, so I will know who to call up when the last presenter has finished.

For those of you who do make a presentation, we do have a short question and answer period after each presentation.

When we start, I usually ask every MP to introduce themselves, and I will start this time with Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): My name is Hector Clouthier, federal Liberal member of Parliament for the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In my riding I have CFB Petawawa.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): My name is John Richardson. I'm the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Defence. My riding is Perth—Middlesex, better known for the town of Stratford, and I'm a Liberal member of Parliament.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): I'm David Pratt. My riding is Nepean—Carleton and I am also a Liberal.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm Judy Longfield. I'm the Liberal member for Whitby—Ajax. I was elected in June 1997. I have been travelling with the committee since it convened after the election.

The Chairman: My name is Robert Bertrand. I'm the Liberal member of Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, and I'm the chairperson of the national defence committee.

We will go right now to the first presenters, Ms. Sheila Johnston and Ms. Linda Gunning.

Ms. Sheila Johnston (President, National Capital Military Family Resource Centre): Good evening, Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen.

My name is Sheila Johnston. I'm here tonight to speak as president of the National Capital Military Family Resource Centre and also as a military spouse. Before I begin, I would like to explain my frame of reference. My life has always been closely connected with the Canadian military. I was born in a British military hospital in Germany when my father was serving with the Canadian army there. I was raised in the PMQs by a single father. I joined the military when I was 17 and went on to become the first female artillery officer in Canada. I left the army after six years to pursue my doctorate in military studies. I've done field research in both Bosnia and Croatia.

Today, however, probably my proudest accomplishment is that of military spouse and mom of three base brats. Basic training was nothing compared to chasing around a bunch of toddlers.

I've spent a considerable amount of time with my board and staff going over some of the difficulties facing the Canadian Armed Forces and their families today. I found it difficult to try to break things down into a list of specific problems. In many instances, one problem perpetuates the other, and this often becomes a cycle. Most of these you have heard time and time again in previous hearings. All need repeating, if only briefly.

• 1915

I have tried to structure my presentation this evening by first dealing with general problems across the CF, and then to touch on problems that are more specific to the national capital region.

Ottawa is not a popular posting for many people because of the difficulties associated with this place. One of the comments I often hear about Ottawa is that it is a posting of penance for past crimes committed. Personally, I feel like that sometimes, as the whole area of family support in the city is just that much more complex. My executive director will extrapolate on this later.

The second part of my presentation tonight is to offer recommendations and possible solutions to the problems I speak about. My nanny always said there is no point talking about problems if you can't offer a solution—wise stuff from a Jewish woman who escaped Lithuania during the Second World War.

I've read time and time again about the social contract. I think it has been accurately described to this committee. It all comes down to responsibilities, responsibility that an individual has to Canada and that Canada has to that individual. The military's obligation has been carefully spelled out through various administrative and legal orders, but Canada's commitment to that same person has never been defined. I think this is what these hearings are about. The soldier, airman, and sailor have lived up to this agreement; Canada hasn't. It is time for the Canadian government and the Canadian public to decide how much they value their armed forces. Change can only come after that realization.

I would go one step further and suggest that the social contract does not only extend to that member in uniform but also to that member's family. I saw that in October of last year. General Baril explained to this committee the idea of unlimited liability. But we also, as families, take on this unlimited liability. Our lives are directly affected by how you treat our spouses, because we have also made the commitment to this country.

Our unlimited liability is to live and care for that maimed and injured husband, to become a widow if our husbands are killed in theatre. We will be required to pick up the pieces and carry on, to raise children who will feel the same pride and sense of loyalty their father did. We are agreeing to allow this country to place the person we love in a dangerous situation, and that is something we live with day by day.

Family support is crucial. Time and time again the senior leadership has expressed the opinion that the operational effectiveness of the CF is tied to the quality of the military's condition of service, their quality of life. Mr. Eggleton has stated on numerous occasions that this is his top priority.

Let's not make this just a political exercise, however, where politicians are scoring media points on the backs of spouses and children. I do believe in this committee and the work they are trying to do. It is your job now to make sure that our message gets out and that something gets done.

The quality of life of military families is falling apart. From 1975 to 1990, deployments consisted of six-month tours at Club Cyprus, families were sent to Germany in large numbers, and all the services available made being a military dependant an exciting and rewarding time. Post-1990, however, has seen a dramatic increase in the number of postings and the frequency of deployments. The Gulf War, Croatia, Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Haiti, the Central African Republic, all these missions have stretched the family's ability to cope. I maintain that we are now being stretched to the limit.

Rear parties generally were quite helpful, with several military chaplains, social workers, and financial counsellors all available. The effects of downsizing, however, have now either reduced or eliminated these services, all in the interest of cost efficiency. We were then told to use local services to handle what was now not available on base.

With provincial and municipal governments drastically cutting back budgets, local services have also been either reduced or eliminated. We are now faced with 18-month waiting lists, not real helpful when your husband is leaving in two weeks. This is where the cycle begins. Stress is already high within the military community. The tangible problems that families face day by day make this all insurmountable. How can you be expected to deal effectively with the stress of having a husband deployed when your PMQ is falling apart? You can't find a job, so you can't make your financial commitments. Your child is now in a new educational system and is falling behind and needs your assistance. Your local doctors are not accepting new patients, so you can't even get a referral to go to talk to someone, and if you could, there is a 14-month waiting list, and you would be required to pay for their services up front and you can't afford to anyway. This is the everyday situation our spouses are dealing with. We need help.

• 1920

I realize that this committee has been appalled by the living conditions of the military within the PMQs. You've seen the status of our housing. It is no different here. I live in married quarters, my walls are crooked, and I can't run my coffee pot and fridge at the same time because the electricity has to be rewired. My plumber and I are on a first-name basis. We've ice cubes growing on our windows in the winter. I can't put my baby on the floor because of the drafts. Our bedrooms are sub-arctic in the winter and our roof leaks in the summer. Yet we pay almost $800 a month for this house, even though the same house in Petawawa would be $300.

The pay hasn't changed. Rent is determined by some arcane formula negotiated by the Treasury Board, which no one understands, and CFHA tells us that we are getting a good deal. I read the report the CFHA made to this committee, and I would maintain that they haven't really a clue as to what it is like to be a military family. They talk about less housing and using housing in the community. We are not the public service. They don't understand that there's a need for many people to live on base for support and services.

Mrs. Longfield's comments on March 10, 1998, hit it right on the nose. The free markets don't deal with the need we particularly have when our husbands are deployed to feel secure, to be in an area that is a base setting, that is a community unto our own.

Housing is a basic right. We have no choice over where we go. The government should be able to guarantee us a decent place to raise our families. The CFHA rationale is that many of these houses are going to be torn down, so why put money into them. I can accept that, but what about those who are in the houses now? Where is the $83 million a year of their annual budget going? Who audits their books? Why isn't this public for the PMQ residents?

Here in Ottawa they're closing the Ottawa-Rockcliffe housing site, a very desirable piece of real estate. Obviously it's too good for just military dependants to live on, so it is sold. What I would like to know, though, is where the money from the sale of Rockcliffe is going. I'm going to say most certainly it is not going into military housing. So we lose 600 houses in a city where the average rent is $1,300 a month, the Treasury Board gets the money, and the families find Ottawa in the future an even more dismal posting.

So how do you deal with this? We need to look at alternatives for housing, but we must involve the families and the professionals at the resource centre in the planning process. Don't leave it up to a bunch of executives who don't seem to have a clue about the military lifestyle. Fund and empower this joint group to allow them to meet housing requirements.

Implement cost-of-living benefits to ensure a consistent standard of living, regardless of posting locations. Don't equate us to the public service, because the nature of military service is unique and not equivalent. Realize that ensuring that housing is available and adequate will improve the effectiveness of serving members and implement policy accordingly.

Next, I think it is important to look at some other basic needs that are often compromised by living within a military framework. The first is education, that of both spouses and children. There are various educational standards across this country, and they are having profound consequences on our children. Kids are skipping all over the place, put ahead one grade in one province and back a grade in another. There are no national standards, and our children are caught in this mess.

This can cause extreme hardship for kids. Since the closure of base schools, our kids are put into the mainstream school boards. Often the teachers have no concept of the unique lifestyle of being a military family. They don't understand that Johnny is acting up because daddy has been in Yugo for four months.

There are not enough resources available to those teachers who do make the time to understand the special needs of the military child. I've shown you a book I recently had published for military children. The teachers loved it, the boards loved it, but there was not enough funding in order to have it have some sort of impact.

Once again, there are long waiting lists for speech and language assistance. Often our children fall between the cracks and are denied this because they are posted before their name comes to the top of the roster. So critical education needs are being unmet.

Constant postings also cause serious problems with spousal education. Many wives are on the never-never plan. Each school has their own curriculum and often courses are not transferable from one school to another, from one province to another. This makes it especially difficult for internships and practicums.

It is also difficult for spouses who hope to pursue any sort of post-graduate work. You pay your tuition every year, complete your comps, only to be told that these are not transferable to your new posting. It can be very frustrating.

Medical problems follow a similar pattern. The health care of a military family can often suffer due to postings. Unlike the Yanks, dependants are not treated by military medical staff. As a result, there's no consistency in health care. At some postings it is impossible to get a regular doctor.

On our last posting to Kingston, I found myself and my children without a doctor. We were required to attend walk-in clinics and emergency rooms every time we needed medical attention. None of the doctors in Kingston were accepting new patients. So every time I would have to go through a long list of previous medical care only to be admonished for not having had someone follow up.

• 1925

Once again, there's the problem with waiting lists, this time for medical diagnosis. My own son was affected by this. He was having a series of developmental difficulties. In Hamilton, at 18 months we was placed on a waiting list at the children's hospital for a diagnosis. We were posted to Kingston when he was 32 months and he was never seen by anyone in Hamilton. In Kingston, we went to the bottom of the new waiting list. He never saw anyone there either. He was now almost four years old. We were then posted to Ottawa, where he went on yet another list. Thirteen months later he saw his first doctor. It was now almost four years later.

The first thing I was told was that I should have gotten him in for an assessment years ago. He was diagnosed with pervasive development disorder, a form of autism. The doctor said that earlier intervention would have had a greater impact for his future. Luckily, he's made amazing strides.

I would ask that you indulge me for another example that did not turn out so well. I recently spoke to a woman whose son died because he too fell victim to the waiting list game. It took her over five years to get his diagnosis, and by that time his situation was so severe that nothing could be done. The doctor told her that if only he had received treatment years ago he would have survived. Why should that family have to live with that guilt when all they did was follow the rules of the system?

Isolated postings just further complicate these matters. At these places, there are no services available. There are also no special programs designed for couples with special issues like fertility problems or women who experience high-risk pregnancy.

Another great concern I see among families is the current prescription reimbursement system, or the great Sun Life scam, as I like to call it. Turnaround time for reimbursement is supposed to be three to five days. It regularly runs six to eight weeks. This discourages many families from filling expensive drug prescriptions because they cannot afford to wait for reimbursement. And we are one of the only organizations left in Canada that requires our people to pay upfront.

And lastly, when a serving member requests a compassionate posting to deal with some of these above concerns, both educational and medical, he's effectively killed his career. It's just one more problem to add to the circle. So what to do here?

First there need to be professionals—educational, social, and medical—made available to military families. It's quite simple. You will often see on an American base specialist pediatricians, language and speech therapists, and social workers employed directly by the Department of Defense. Their only job is to service military families. U.S. families are never left to fend for themselves in the community.

If we can't have these specialists, although I personally think we should consider this, then there should be at the very least arrangements made with local communities to give special considerations to incoming families. There could be national lists. There could be an ombudsman available to smooth these things over and get families their own doctors. If families are not allowed to use the military prescription system, then why can't the pharmacy bill Sun Life directly and then have the military reimburse them? Why this extra step, especially when so many other organizations—to include the RCMP—have taken this route?

My last section involves several things that I believe are both cyclical in nature and are at the very core of many of the problems today: pay and benefits and spousal employment. Here in Canada, we used to pride ourselves on taking care of our own, especially in relation to other countries. Even our lowest ranks were living well above their counterparts in other nations. Things have almost reversed. Now, an American captain earns the same as the Canadian captain, although his buys a much higher standard of living, plus he receives a host of benefits.

Please explain to me why my husband, as a captain with 14 years in, a master's degree directly related to his occupation, a man who more often than not works 60 hours a week, earns less than an Ottawa bus driver. Is this how we value our military personnel? They put their very lives at risk. They're responsible to be deployed at a moment's notice. They routinely work on weekends, holidays, and extended daily hours. How is this comparable?

And then there is their pension. Do you realize that the Yanks and the Brits do not pay into their pension the same way we do? Theirs is a big thanks for serving their country. Our has become a tax.

A report that was just put out on the 13th of this month says that the average family income in Ottawa is $67,243 a year. Across Canada, it sits at approximately $54,000. Experts say that even this does not guarantee a decent living standard. Now look at our soldiers, at the corporal who earns $32,000, the sergeant who earns $38,000 to $40,000, or the captain who earns $45,000. How are these comparable?

• 1930

I realize these numbers are predicated upon two incomes, but as I am sure you have heard time and time again, a second income is effectively killed off by living the military lifestyle. This becomes the very heart of the pay benefit problem. It's not even that the military member's pay is grossly indecent; it's that in most cases that's all there is, and it falls way below the national average.

Yet another piece that ran that day, directly below the Statistics Canada report, was an article saying members of Parliament were giving themselves a $1,300 annual raise and doubling their housing allowance to make it, in the words of John Bryden, Liberal, more realistic to meet the costs of keeping an apartment or house in Ottawa. They were given a $21,000 tax-free allowance and 64 return airline tickets to return to their home ridings. Amazingly enough, all five parties actually agreed on something collectively, and accepted this.

Now look at our benefits. Our posting allowance and triple-A are all taxed—easily around 40%. We pay provincial tax in the province we have no choice but to live in. We earn less than the public service, although the public servant's responsibility, I would argue, comes nowhere near that of a military member. Yet when we look at the RCMP and DFAIT, we see they do not pay tax on their benefits, and now we know members of Parliament don't either.

As I mentioned, spousal employment is closely tied to this. I was stunned to see a Treasury Board report, reference 132, 1994, that rejected the military's claim that loss of spousal income was a legitimate consideration in determining a member's quality of life. How can they possibly reject this, especially when the report was accompanied by numbers from Statistics Canada? Most military spouses who are employed are grossly under-employed. The average income of a military spouse was $11,511 in 1994, while that of a public servant's spouse was $26,280 a year. The military spouse was making 60% less than a public servant spouse, and that was for the fortunate few who could find positions.

Spouses face a mountain of obstacles when trying to find jobs. For professional spouses, the shifts in education and accreditation requirements alone can prove to be a huge hurdle. Some accreditation courses run up to $5,000 a course. It is difficult for other spouses to satisfy intern field work and practicum requirements.

Then there is the language difficulty of being a francophone in an anglophone environment, an anglophone in a francophone environment, or, like myself, totally incompetent in linguistic matters. Not being bilingual here in Ottawa is a serious problem.

There is also the reluctance of many employers to hire military spouses, for all the obvious reasons. This is even present within the Department of National Defence. I bring to mind the MacBride-King report of 1986.

Then there are the child care complications and the difficulties associated with the spouse being deployed. Most spouses do not have any benefits or pensions, and there is a very real limitation on promotions and advancements. But we are told that is just the way things are. Then I discovered not too long ago that the DFAIT spouses are all security-cleared, given preference for inside contract work, and even have the services of a full-time staff member whose only job is to liaise for employment purposes on behalf of DFAIT spouses. Now there's a deal.

Do you need recommendations? I have dozens.

First and foremost, a CF member should be compensated equitably for their skills and experience in the unique nature of military service. A benefits package should then be implemented to take into account the special needs of military families. This benefit should not be taxed.

Spousal employment should be viewed with the importance it takes on within the lives of families, by either providing for the loss of spousal income as a direct result of military service or investing energy in dealing with overcoming some of the obstacles that are there.

Reimbursement of accreditation costs to help with university tuition, universal child-care availability, and second-language training for spouses are just some of the recommendations.

One of my strongest comments is to let spouses work on these recommendations. You will be returning to Parliament to make a report on your submissions and recommendations. Why not give this to the spouses to handle? Let us work along with you to build this report, instead of some nameless public servant or contractor who has no idea about our lifestyle. Employ us. We are more than willing to help and are intimately familiar with these problems. We are a huge resource that remains untouched.

Overall, what do we need? As General Dallaire said, systems are in place, but it don't come cheap. If MFRCs are going to take on greater responsibilities in the area of family support, they must be funded properly. We are currently spending about $400 a year per family in this country. The Yanks currently spend over $11,000 per family. I've worked within the American family support system, and it is excellent. Family support is their number one priority and they put their money behind that philosophy. We can do the job; we just need the resources to do it effectively.

• 1935

Secondly—and this is very important to me—we need to take up the recommendation of chief review services of March 31, 1997, and create a military spouse advisory board. The FMRCs, excellent as they are, do not relate to the national perspective and are concerned with their own communities and individual needs therein.

This reports reads:

There are no means for military spouses to determine what is required and appropriate across the military family support plan and in turn what the minimum level of services should be at all 41 FMRCs.

The recommendation to this report is that a national advisory board be created, co-chaired by a military spouse and a senior military officer. Such a board could provide better linkages and marketing to the 40,000 CF military spouses by communicating directly with them and by serving as a focal point for their input and initiatives.

There is an urgent need to create a military spouse advisory board that facilitates and in fact encourages input from and discussion by military spouses directly so they will ultimately take ownership of the military family support plan.

I've been nagging General Dallaire about this for a year now. The poor man is tired of seeing me. This, however, would empower us spouses to be in a position to deal with these problems. We could work from within the system, not from outside. I know General Dallaire is strongly behind this, and I cannot stress enough the importance and impact this could have on this country and the quality of lives in military families. He should be supported and encouraged to pursue this until it is fully implemented. Only then will we have a say in our future.

Finally, I've struggled with dealing with the following, but have finally decided to bring this up. I feel so strongly about it that to keep quiet would go against every personal principle I hold. I fear that the media coverage of the last few weeks has completely overshadowed any ground or momentum this committee has made in the opinion of the government and the minds of the people of Canada. We once again find ourselves in the midst of a scandal, this time involving the treatment of women in the CF.

This I say from experience. I was the recipient of some very serious physical and sexual abuse and harassment during my training as a young officer ten years ago. It did exist, and I was exposed to it. I didn't have the strength to speak out against it then, and I watched as my female peers were subjected to the abuse as well. But I have the courage now to deal with it, and I'm working within the military currently on what went wrong.

Here, I must say, I believe, with every fibre of my being, these actions were caused by a very small undesirable bunch. To taint the men and women of the CF today with this is grossly unfair. To deny their concerns now is unjust.

I've often been asked, given the abuse I suffered, why I continue to be a strong advocate for the CF. I'll tell you now what I always say. It is because I know the vast majority of personnel who serve our country do so with honour, courage and loyalty. They are the best of the best. I always maintain that I would not be living any other lifestyle, because I have realized that every day I walk among heroes, true Canadian heroes. What greater honour can I have?

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you.

Ms. Gunning.

Ms. Linda Gunning (Executive Director, Canadian Military Family Resource Centre): Thank you.

Since the incorporation of the MFRC in the national capital region in 1992, I have been its executive director. I might add that the MFRC for the national capital region was the last to be developed. More family resource centres have come on board, but at that time, we were the last of the major bases to have a resource centre.

I mention this because it's important. When I first took the position, I asked myself why this had not been the first, and the prototype. Six years later, it's very clear why it was not done that way. Basically, it was felt that NDHQ did not need a family resource centre.

I came to the position with 25 years of community development and social service experience. My husband spent 28 years as a sub-mariner. He is now retired. My stepson is a naval officer, married, with two children. My two grandchildren, I don't see, because there's no life like it.

• 1940

Currently at the military family resource centre, just to give you some background on what we look like, we have 10.5 staff positions. Staff are located at two sites, Rockcliffe and Uplands. The distance between these two sites is 25 kilometres, or 30 minutes by car.

Uplands is a particularly isolated community, with many military members working shift work at Leitrim station, which often requires them to take the family car to work. Bus service from the site, once per hour, deposits people at a bus terminal. That's the beginning of your voyage. Service to a local community centre is only four kilometres away. However, it takes two bus rides and 45 minutes to get there. This obviously is not a community resource to people living at the Uplands site.

It has been a consistent uphill battle to put in place the mandate of military family support in the national capital region. Last year in this region military families endured a 40% cut in their MFRC services over the previous two years. This year we are told that we are the only MFRC that has not received any funding for second-level services.

There are a number of points I would like to cover very briefly. I'll run through them now and then elaborate a tiny bit on each one.

(1) We are still struggling to obtain a nominal roll of our families as well as lists of members on peacekeeping missions and TDs.

(2) We have been denied funding for modest satellite locations.

(3) Our operational structure is different from a base, and as a result, our families' needs are not understood or appreciated.

(4) The cost of living in the national capital region is high, and families posted here are often surprised by that reality.

(5) Our youth are finding it difficult to live on the base sites due to the decrease in recreational facilities.

(6) The MFRCs' inability to properly support single-parent military members is of concern.

The nominal roll is particularly difficult for us not to have in the national capital region, because only 20% of our population is living in base housing at Rockcliffe and Uplands. The remaining 80% is scattered throughout the region. It is a clear mandate for us as an MFRC, however, that we reach the 6,000 families living in the national capital region. We produce an excellent community newspaper, published four times a year, and currently reach a third of our population in this manner.

What is the solution? That the CFSU has sufficient funds. I mentioned this nominal roll. It's something I have been complaining about for six years. It's something people are very used to hearing me gripe about. But this is not an issue or a problem that is one person's problem. It's more a structural organization problem.

We at NDHQ have never bothered to have nominal rolls, not seeing that it was really important to have computerized information of that type. We truly follow the response mechanism of the military that when there's a problem, we know where to pick up that file, but we don't have the means to do proactive work.

So I would recommend that somewhere in the system, probably within the CFSU, which is the support unit, there are enough resources, both in persons and financially, to be able to put together the nominal roll so it doesn't have to take as long as it seems to take.

We also need some cross-referencing methods that would make certain we have all the names of peacekeepers and members on TD, or those members who are away from their families for more than a month, for follow-up with these families. Many families at present fall through the cracks. You heard this afternoon from of those who sort of missed the boat.

• 1945

We're quite good at welcoming people. I think we talked this afternoon as well about the welcome wagon idea. Family resource centres work very well at trying to welcome newcomers when they have that information. For the most part we rely on military members to get that information to their spouses. Sometimes that isn't the perfect route.

Our goal is to send each military family household a copy of our newspaper, Contact, so they are aware of our existence and of our programs and services, and to have contact with all families with a member on deployment, pre-, during, and post-.

As part of our second-level funding, we requested funding for four satellite offices that could be open five mornings per week—half-time, in other words. This request was denied, with the explanation that the request was not sufficiently substantiated. Our mandate in military family support is to provide support in the community where military members live. Without a nominal roll, it is true that we are unable to quote specific numbers, but the fact that members refer to Orleans, for example, as Base Orleans does give us a strong verbal cue.

The solution is the production, again, of the nominal roll and perhaps a two-year commitment to four satellite locations in Aylmer, Gatineau, Ottawa West, and Orleans, with a half-time staff person in each location and space to accommodate an office, information space, and meeting space for spouses and children.

Our goal is to have an opportunity to advocate for our families in the communities they are living in and to sensitize agencies in these communities to the needs and lifestyles of military families. We have found it's possible to do it from some other location, but once you have gone into a community and you are basically telling that community you are interested in how it functions, the tendency to listen to you and what you have say about your specific portion of the community is a lot better.

Operational structure: the civilianization of the military, i.e. the development of the defence team at NDHQ, has been especially detrimental to families in Ottawa. Military members and their families are made to feel that they are whining if they ask for support. Military families are unique, and their right to special services, resources, and supports has been established through sound research, which has been subsequently supported by focus groups, needs surveys, and operational reviews. Yet the need for our existence is constantly questioned, primarily by the civilian side of the defence team. We should not be substantiating our programs to and depending on our funding from civilian bureaucrats.

The solution is that our chain of command should end with a senior military officer. Our goal, as it has always been, is to assist the CF at NDHQ in its responsibility to ensure that families are supported so members can be operationally effective.

Sheila said some good words on the cost of living in the national capital region, and I just must mention it again. From our point of view, housing and the costs of recreational and social amenities are higher than on most bases, yet salaries remain the same across the country, and as she said, that triple-A just doesn't seem to work. As a result, families are truly struggling financially and no longer have choices, such as a spouse going to work to gain a second income. The second income, for the average military family with three children, is a necessity.

This need to work then brings about other subsequent hurdles: the job opportunities, the child care issues, bilingualism, and of course, if you're posted, the old EI problem.

Job opportunities are not great. Many of our spouses are underemployed. Many will not be hired because companies feel they are too mobile and therefore unreliable. Child care is very high—$25 to $40 per day per child—which means the spouse cannot afford to be underemployed, so her job opportunities diminish, or she may have to use child care that is below standard, thereby denying her child a high-quality developmental environment and the more positive aspects of being away from his or her parent.

• 1950

Bilingualism is almost a necessity for good job opportunities, but we do not have free or low-cost immersion courses for spouses, with child care, preferably with free child care.

The denial of EI benefits for spouses who must leave their job because of postings overseas is very demoralizing. A solution would be a spousal employment program modelled on the programs running at DFAIT and CIDA, or better. A second solution would be language immersion courses for spouses, free or at minimal cost, with subsidy for child care where needed.

A third solution would be for DND to negotiate with Human Resources Canada for a certain amount of EI benefits for spouses, to be held until their return to Canada from an overseas posting, no matter long the posting. EI has the discretionary power to hold over EI benefits up to 104 weeks if someone loses their job because they have to go to jail. It seems reasonable that a spouse who has accompanied her family overseas, and because of that decision has had to give up her job, can at least be offered some EI benefits upon her return to Canada, so that she can find another job.

Our goal is to have sufficient second-level funding to hire a person to do spousal-employment and job-readiness training, and funding to manage a language immersion program or the allocation of spaces within ongoing DND immersion programs, with child care subsidy, and to assist DND in negotiating with Human Resources Canada on solving the EI situation.

On youth issues, although the MFRC provides some teen drop-in programs, we are realizing that more time and energy is required in this area. The lack of recreational facilities, especially on the base sites, is a hardship for our youth, and we are dealing with ever-increasing problems involving drugs, alcohol, and vandalism.

Are the problems greater than in the rest of the community? Maybe not. The civilian community has programs available within walking distance of their youth, but our youth are virtually trapped at Uplands, for example, so it becomes our community problem. They suffer what is locally called “the triple whammy”: geographical isolation; no transportation; no money.

The solution is more funding for the director of military family support for youth centres and programs, and a community recreation person assigned to Uplands and Rockcliffe sites by the personnel services agency. Our goal is to honestly meet the needs of youth, providing appropriate recreational and support services and liaison with school authorities and parents in building a healthy environment for our children.

There are a couple of other small issues—well, they're large issues, but small paragraphs.

In regard to single-parent military members, child care support for deployment, TDs, and shift work are the most common problems for single parents who are military members. I will only say that it is very disheartening to hear some of their stories and to realize that if they do not have these proper supports, when will our spouses be eligible? Based on our funding, we are unable to support them properly through 24-hour subsidized child care programs or anything coming close to that. At present, our child care registry is our only solution.

As to other issues, spouses who have children in school or who do not have children do not want programs per se from the MFRC; they want jobs. You've heard that directly from them this afternoon. They don't want to volunteer, either; they want jobs.

Regarding shift work, 12-hour shifts are not healthy. Studies have shown family relationship problems often result from this type of work schedule. Many shift workers cannot adjust to the 12-hour shifts, and work in the last two to four hours is not as productive. We have some families with two military members working on alternate shifts.

• 1955

Leitrim did give members shift choices, and they chose the 12-hour shift, because they were lured by the four days off. Should a good employer be offering choices that they know from research to be harmful? Is this a family-friendly policy?

When we eliminate housing—for example, the Rockcliffe housing site—is there a plan to use some of the savings and gains from land sales to develop satellite locations in the communities that those people will be moving to? I feel there is a hope that if families get lost living on the economy, we then have no responsibility to provide service. Is this an underlying policy direction?

When DND works on any issues involving families, can it not be a matter of course to consult with the local MFRC? And remember, the national capital region is unique. It is not like any other base. This is not an excuse to eliminate service but a challenge to seek ever-improving ways of serving this large and geographically diffuse population.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Judi, you had a question.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Actually I have a comment first, and it's to Linda.

Linda, continue your harassing—that's a bad word—your nagging of General Dallaire about the military spouse advisory board. That's something that needs to be done, and there's a number of us who will join you in trying to pursue that.

You made a comment to do with the recent articles in Maclean's on the sexual abuse. I for one want to see any incidents of sexual abuse or potential stamped out and dealt with, but I find it quite appalling that Maclean's magazine is using the plight of the military to sell magazines. This is going on in all facets of the Canadian population, and you don't see the sexual abuse at General Motors or IBM or any other place filling the local newspapers or magazines. I think you're right that it's a very small minority and it's painting everyone with a broad brush, and I find that most disgraceful.

Having said that, the minister is very anxious to get to the bottom of it and resolve the problem so that women we are trying to recruit into the armed forces are never in fear of this kind of thing happening to them. I think we're all trying to get to that point.

Linda, you talked about something Sheila said as well. I've always worried about this business of housing and the idea that we get out of it totally, and you brought that so strongly forward when you said people get lost in the economy. That's what worries me about just simply saying we're going to put people helter-skelter. Why is it that you can't get a list of military families so you can put them on a mailing list, so you can say to them, “Here we are; we want to help”?

Ms. Linda Gunning: If downsizing hadn't come along when it did, things might have had an opportunity to go in the right direction, but the departments that were necessary to get this actually done ended up being squeezed at the time, because they were going onto new computerized systems, there was a decrease in personnel who usually did a lot of this clerical work, and other demands just came on. I think it's getting better, but to me it's a symptom of the kind of bureaucratic stuff I am constantly scraping my nails against the cement wall on.

On the base, the CO is God, and that's really good sometimes, because things can get done if you can convince him that this really needs to happen. Here it's quite a lengthy chain of command, and even when you get a fairly senior signature on your little piece of paper, you can still get quizzed by people saying, “Well, I don't think you're entitled to this. Where does that come from?” Then you have to backtrack and say “Look, we are entitled.”

• 2000

I originally went to the privacy commissioner, because at one point we were told that really this was a privacy issue and we weren't entitled to have names. But for us not to is like telling a plumber he has to do his job without his tools. You need to be able to reach your clients, your customer base, and if you're not given that information, you're pretty stymied in your job.

And at one point I thought, “Well, maybe I am wrong. Maybe I should go to the privacy commissioner and make sure. After all, we are the family resource centre. We shouldn't be stepping on people's rights.” And we were told quite clearly that no, the act certainly allows for this, that it was a necessity for our job, and that it was for a good purpose, and therefore there was no reason we shouldn't have this information.

So that's where we started, and then it's been getting the message across, and finally now we're in an environment where we have an excellent commandant who is helping to make this happen. But the years have passed, and it's really unfortunate. People have expectations of family resource centres now, because they have been in existence for five years, and if you still can't get it out there, they're starting to look at you and say, “Hey, there must be something wrong with you. It can't just be the system.”

So we'll be anxious to get the nominal roll, and I'm sure it will happen. It's there, there's this new program, and it's all supposed to come together. I'm anxious to see the results.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Well, hang in there.

I have one other question just before you go. You talked about second-level services. What qualifies as a second-level service?

Ms. Linda Gunning: This is very interesting, because I guess about a year ago now, executive directors and chairpersons came together at a major meeting to discuss this very fact. We had this new operational plan and we were now going to put it into effect, and how were were going to do this?

Well, we were going to have pretty basic core services. Everybody across Canada would have core services. Every military family could rely on every family resource centre being able to provide them something in the core area of services.

Then there were going to be second-level services. These were going to be services specific to the location. At the time I was very leery of these second-level services, because they were supposed to be treated financially as core services; they would just be different for each location.

As life went on and the paperwork tumbled down, second-level services became services for which we would have to go to the base commander or equivalent here to ask for additional moneys to fund those services.

Well, in our case, these were things such as our satellite operations. It was a little more money to have youth workers working with us. The core services say we should do four programs per year for youth. We did not feel this was in any way going to meet the needs of our youth. Therefore we asked for the second-level services.

Nursery schools are a second-level service. Counselling is a second-level service. Crisis intervention is not, but counselling is.

You know you can have moms' and tots' groups and you know you can have play groups, and those are core services, but when you start going into the nursery school programs, that has to pay for itself, so you need a cost built into the program.

It would be the same thing for child care.

One of the things we fight a lot about—and it's because we're in Ottawa, we're just that fishbowl—is if we talk about child care, the first thing everybody says is, “Oh, you could never get away with that. The public would go insane. Child care being paid by public funds?”

• 2005

My feeling is that day care is very expensive here. All right, what we need is day care that will meet the needs of people who can't afford to pay the going rate, so how do we get a subsidy pool?

I wondered whether it was so far-fetched to say that the military family resource centre program would fund the director, let's say, of that program through public funds. It's a supervisory position. It falls into the category. If the space is paid for, if the utilities are paid for, and if the director is paid for, we should have a pool of that director's salary as subsidy money. Well again, no, we can't do that because it would public funds. That's a no-no.

It's the same thing with the DFAIT stuff. When we first found out about DFAIT, we said wow, this is a great idea. If they could do it, why can't we do it? All of a sudden, there was this attitude that no, we can't do that. It'll never be accepted because public service will have their arms up.

Yes, they can do it at DFAIT, so why can't we do it here? Why can't we fight for those things? Why is that so hard? Why do we always have to think that we're too second class to have those things? We're not second class, so we should have them.

I was in a focus group meeting with DFAIT spouses and military spouses. The DFAIT spouses actually said to us that we must feel like they have everything and we have nothing. They said that they were at this focus group complaining, so we must think they're pretty bad.

How do you feel if you're a spouse sitting there? That's not right.

The Chairman: Thank you to you both for your presentations.

I now call on Major Nicole Vallée.

Major Nicole Vallée (Individual Presentation): I'm Major Nicole Vallée, and I'm a member of the reserve force.

The issue I'll raise is the pension benefits for reserve force. Over the past ten years or so, I've been hearing and seeing things that led me to believe that the CF was taking measures to provide pension to reservists, who are the only members of the defence team denied access to a pension plan. The chief of reserves and cadets also raised this issue in his address to you on December 9 of last year.

You can appreciate that as a reservist with many years of full-time service, the financial stability that a pension plan would provide to me would be substantial. There are a few of us who are in this situation, but nonetheless, I feel we are important members of the department, and as such, we should not be forgotten. Furthermore, since 1993, in accordance with the Pension Benefits Standards Act, it's the law.

Every time I raise the issue with fellow CF members, I get the same type of reaction and response, which is twofold.

First, regular force members tend to believe that reservists should not be extended CFSA benefits as their commitment is simply not the same. Often they say that they should really consider themselves lucky to have a job in the first place.

Reservists, on the other hand, would benefit from such a pension benefit as they would get serious stability out of it. They feel that if they raise the issue too much that their jobs will be in jeopardy. In other words, they're disturbing the peace here. So if you get rid of them by simply not extending their contracts or something, they'll go away.

When I formally queried the issue with NDHQ staff just recently, I was informed that DND seemed to lack the acceptance of the need to address the issue of reserve requirements and that there was a serious absence of direction within the department to to attack it, these two factors being the impediment to further progress in this matter.

• 2010

It looks to me like they've hit a dead end. In my opinion as a person who can potentially get the benefits, since 1993 they've made no real progress at all on the issue.

I raise the issue here only with the hope that the matter will be put back on track and that it will be addressed in a timely fashion. I have provided a copy of my aide-mémoire to the committee's secretary, and I think it's an issue that now needs to be addressed seriously—for once.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. We have had the issue brought up a couple of times at committee.

Major, have you ever been deployed?

Maj Nicole Vallée: No, sir, I have not. I have never been deployed. I have 24 years of full-time service out of a 25-year career. A lot of it was in the personnel world for the reserve forces, on the army side.

When I did statistical surveys I found that between only 50 and 75 people would really get a serious benefit out from it, “serious benefit” meaning that it's the sole source of pension for those members because they devoted their careers to assisting the reserves. Those members tend to work in support of reserve issues within the department. They are, in fact, reserve experts.

The Chairman: Did you say 50 to 75 people?

Maj Nicole Vallée: Yes, in the army. I was doing army militia statistics. The last time I did them was in 1996, and there were 52 members who had over five years of continuous service, sir.

Mr. John Richardson: Full-time?

The Chairman: Just as a point of clarification, do you have any problems with your pay? We've heard horror stories about it.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Yes, sir. Continually.

The Chairman: After 24 years?

Maj Nicole Vallée: Oh, yes. But they change. It's like they're on wheels.

Being a finance officer in the reserve force and having worked with the reserve adviser shop for the army for a few years, I acted as ombudsman for pay problems for people within the army. I know where the problems are coming from and how big they are. The normal person cannot deal with them. One individual certainly cannot deal with them.

The Chairman: Do we have problems now?

Maj Nicole Vallée: Buckets, sir.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Yes, sir. I can give you some personal examples if you're interested.

The Chairman: Please do.

Maj Nicole Vallée: For example, the department recently came up with a benefit called “triple A”, the accommodation assistance allowance.

The Chairman: Yes. The triple-A allowance.

Maj Nicole Vallée: I have been entitled to that for class B and class C service. Over the past 14 months they have not been able to pay class B, period. It's not that the staff is not trying. It's that the means are not there. The politicians say it exists and the computer system says, “So what? We can't process it.” On class C, however, it's a different system and it pays.

So when I saw my pay go down 15%, it went down 15% plus triple A because “we simply can't give it to you, ma'am”. It's the problem. The pay system hasn't been paying me now for the two months I've been on class B since the end of my class C. It simply does not pay me. The clerk has to do everything manually, and the clerk is not assisted very much in the issue either. You can't say the clerk is incompetent. The clerk has been put in a situation where he or she is incapable of being effective.

So you take some flak off it— You get enough money to survive. This week I got my T-4 slips for last year. Income tax was a while back— That's typical, to a point where it's not really worth pursuing too much. You choose your battles.

• 2015

The Chairman: And I presume we have spent a number of millions of dollars trying to get the system up and running.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Yes, sir. I know we have. In fact, I've worked on one of the pay system projects and I know there's a lot of effort going into it.

Why isn't it working? I would tend not to blame the project management staff. I don't think it's at that level. They're putting their hearts into this.

The Chairman: Where do you think the problem is?

Maj Nicole Vallée: I think the problem occurs when management provides direction irrespective of the capability to cope with the direction. That's my personal opinion. They came up with the triple-A benefit knowing full well that the system couldn't take it. They came out with a new incentive pay structure that was well overdue. I put in a lot of ink on getting this approved through the years, but the system cannot pay IPC.

I think they succeeded this month, but nobody is very impressed to be told they're getting a humongous raise because they've been cheated for years on this and they're now worth 85% of their counterparts.

“Oh, yes,” they say, “we won't give you the money right away because the system cannot do it.” When McDonald's can pay— I wouldn't believe DND should be able to pay— It's frustrating every member.

The Chairman: Major, I've said it on a number of occasions and I'll say it again tonight: I think we should have the generals' pay on the same system as the reserves' pay, and I guarantee you that the problem would be fixed.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Yes, but I have an officer where I work, a general, who is on class B, and he's having the same pay problems I am.

The Chairman: The regular force generals.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Oh, yes, that's different. That's very special.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Major. You brought up a very good point.

Master Seaman Greg Jurchuk. I hope I pronounced that correctly.

Master Seaman Greg Jurchuk (Individual Presentation): Yes, you did, sir.

I've served 16 years in the regular forces. Some of the highlights of my career include serving with 1 Canadian Signals Regiment in Kingston, serving as a peacekeeper in the Middle East, and being a part of Her Majesty's Canadian ship Kootenay, when I was part of the goodwill visit to Vladivostok.

I don't have an official presentation. I've boiled it down to four questions I'd like to leave with the committee.

First, whey are are we paying EI when we can't collect it?

Second, I was told to move from Borden to Ottawa and because of rent and cost of living I have calculated that even with triple A I have taken a net $400 pay cut per month.

Third, why do we give the soldier or sailor or airman a pay raise and then raise his rent above that, leaving the member with less than he had before?

Fourth, why must we, as Canadian service personnel, travel to a foreign land to be appreciated? I had to travel to Holland for Nijmegen in March 1997, and I felt prouder to be a Canadian serviceman there than I am here, where the military is slammed in the papers on a regular basis.

Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Master Seaman, you've raised four very important points. They have come up on a number of occasions in our of bases. EI has come up on a number of occasions, and pay raises, the same thing.

• 2020

Last week we were in Europe. We visited Germany and Bosnia, and the Canadian soldiers over in Germany told us the same thing, that they are better appreciated in a foreign country than they are over here in Canada.

How do we change things? I sincerely hope and believe the work our committee is doing now will result in some changes. As to other changes, how to get the Canadian military forces to be appreciated in Canada, that's something our committee will be looking at and making recommendations on.

I don't know if any other member— David?

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a couple of comments on that.

I think it almost goes without saying that the natural disasters we've had over the last couple of years have done wonders for the reputation of the military in Canada, and some of the polling that I know some of the members around this table have seen recently indicate that the military—notwithstanding the recent Maclean's coverage—is probably the highest it has been in quite a while.

I think one of things this committee would like to do is to try to capitalize on the good feelings that exist out there among many Canadians, that the military is doing a great job and not getting the sort of respect and compensation and benefits it deserves.

When we started our work, heading out to Esquimalt and going up north, back in January, one of the things we got at a lot of the bases, actually, was a video replay of This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I don't know if you saw that, going back a few months ago, with Rick Mercer talking about what a great deal the Canadian military is. He got the point across in a very humorous but at the same time serious way that we aren't giving our men and women in uniform their just desserts on a whole range of issues.

I think this committee is really determined to make a difference that way. We don't have any opposition members here tonight, but I know if they were here, you would find a fair degree of unanimity in terms of dealing with this issue. For most of us, I think it has really become a very non-partisan exercise that way. We all want to see something happening. Minister Eggleton, as well, was the person who got the ball rolling on this study, and I think he deserves a lot of credit for that.

But I think getting to the heart of the issue is the appreciation that the Canadian public has for the military. It's not like it is in the States, clearly, where people can recognize your rank based on your shoulder epaulets and your rank insignia. It's not like that here. We are one of the most complacent nations on earth in terms of the role our military plays, and I think this committee has its work cut out for it that way, as far as changing that psyche. The world we live in in the 1990s is in many respects a more dangerous place than it was in the 1980s, and I think the need for a strong and, as the promotional material from DND says, “combat-capable” armed forces is greater now than it has been in many, many years.

All in all, I think we still have an uphill battle, but I think the committee is determined to make a difference that way.

The Chairman: Thanks, David.

Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: One of the things we found out while we were on the defence committee hearings throughout Europe, but especially Germany, caught me a bit by surprise. One of the reasons the people of Holland apparently appreciate the military, and especially the Canadian military, is because the children in their school system, starting from elementary school through to high school, are very highly educated with regard to the benefits of the military, and especially the Canadian military.

• 2025

I was walking over here at about 6:45 p.m., and I happened to run into a tourist. I knew he wasn't English, so I stopped and was speaking with him, and lo and behold, he and his wife were from Holland. “Why did you come to Canada?” I asked him. I think he said he was 27, and he said, “Because my father and my grandfather and my mother and my grandmother said that Canada is one of the greatest countries in the world, because they liberated our country”.

I asked him about the educational system. He could rhyme off dates and Canadian military personnel—and I'm embarrassed to say it—far better than I could. I know my children couldn't recount anything like that. Apparently that was taught in the school system.

Perhaps with a book such as Sheila Johnston has written—these little books something like this— it would be food for thought to somehow get that into the Canadian curriculum to make the young people aware of the tremendous benefits and the tremendous things the Canadian military has done. That's just an observation.

I remarked, when you said you were transferred from Borden to Ottawa, that you lost about $400 a month. I could just tell by your tone of voice that you probably did not want to be transferred here. I know Sheila mentioned something about it before—about compassionate reasons for transfers. What has been your experience or your perspective on career managers?

MS Greg Jurchuk: In what way, sir?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Well, have they been helpful with you? We've been hearing a lot of things about them, and I'm just wondering, did you speak to your career manager about the move?

MS Greg Jurchuk: Generally, as far as posting preferences are concerned, sir, I've been quite fortunate. Coming to Ottawa was an unusual situation. I've been in Borden for about seven years. The clerk I replaced had been in Ottawa for about seven years, and the career manager thought they were going to switch us.

I talked to my replacement, whose replacement I was also, and we determined that we were both quite happy where we were. I guess you could say this was the first time I'd received a posting that I hadn't expected.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay. Thank you.

MS Greg Jurchuk: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Sherry MacKenzie.

Ms. Sherry MacKenzie (Individual Presentation): Hello. I was in the military years ago, and I was sexually assaulted and abused and harassed—very well harassed on a continuous basis, and punished for my own complaints.

The way I was punished was the same way people suffered in Iraq, which we saw on TV—kept hostage and doped up, and having to smile for the camera.

I've studied war and medicine since, and I see that this is all the same stuff that Hitler's doctors prescribed for himself and other people. I also see that Radovan Karadzic is still free, though he did that as well.

I'm very ashamed of the part of the military that has been connected to that. I am not ashamed of the good individuals, and I don't want to see a competition any more between the bad parts and the good part. We need to see a separation where there is a separation already, but with the tables reversed—the bad going out, and the good staying in or coming back or being hired as good.

As for the comment I heard about Maclean's selling magazines through the story, I'm actually proud of them, and don't want anybody else to cut down. I've fought this battle since 1982, and nobody has ever come forward—Canadian Human Rights Commission or anybody—to help me out. I'm living in poverty house right now, and my landlord is stealing from me, because this has gone on for years.

Canada has snubbed every claim I had, including the military—my first attempt at a career—and other attempts to expose harassment in civilian workplaces in a similar way. And yet I got the licence that the military said I could not get. That's the fact. They said I could not get it, and yet the military licence that I was trying for is only a fraction of what the Ministry of Transport gave me for an aircraft engineer's. I would like to point that out.

• 2030

I would like to point out that it was also said that why I was out of the military was to avoid human rights groups the way they did it. Black eye— I'm going to help all these black eyes to continue and I'm going to start continuing to help more become black eyes, because this is in fact a problem.

I was outside of the Rideau Centre one particular day and I was talking about Hitler and his doctors when a war veteran came by and literally threatened me with his cane and said “You cannot speak of this. You've never been on a battlefield.” I said “You've been behind the butt of a gun, sir, and I'll tell you one thing, you've never, ever looked at what caused these wars. You've never tried. All you saw was what blasted people. You've never seen what told people to be blasted.”

I've since heard that the vets have snubbed the same story that was going to go into the War Museum on what is going on. I'll tell you what I suffered in the military is identical. What people suffered that showed up in those Maclean's magazines— Shame on the individuals who snubbed those people and who did it and who did both, snubbing and doing it. That has to go. We have to now look at when we have a disaster we recognize the good people, not the whole military, not the whole anybody else. The fact of the matter is that when I look at the Maclean's magazine I'm pretty proud.

I've also heard that another magazine was trying to get into it, and I don't know what their status is on it right now, but I do not appreciate their input, because they had sexual pornography and they are called Esprit de Corps— Scott Taylor. I have seen that pornography myself. And it's the same with my church minister friend who's come down with me to their magazine. That I would be mad at if I saw it, and I will be mad, but nobody should cut down Maclean's for coming with a rescue boat for us.

It's time we get paid for the damages to our careers, even if we have been able to work since. Even if we still are working but we're not getting the same as what we tried for, we should be compensated for that, for the loss to our old age pension contributions, the damages to our careers, the damages to our potential to be promoted from day one from that attempt on up, and for the fact that we had to restart our careers in the same trade or other trades without being able to mention the military as a career source to recognize us and tell another company. These kinds of things go on, and, yes, I feel terrible, because I went in thinking I could either become a peacekeeper within my trade or otherwise or thinking I could join the Snowbirds.

This “moan's world”, as I will call it, is not the fault of the innocent male soldier nor the innocent female soldier of the white or any other colour of race. This “moan's world” is the result of somebody who needed steel suspenders, and whoever peed in those masks, or as I know it, said or did pee in a coffee cup; that is a crime we try to practise base defence against to prevent other soldiers destroying our equipment by sneaking in or even spraying stuff on top of us that would just rot rubber. We tried to prevent that in our base defence practices, and what happens? Our own soldiers were doing it to us, to stuff that we owned or that was given to us for our convenience or safety. No, no.

My coffee cup had parts washed in it and there were sexual tampering claims made about it, although they didn't catch anybody. And I'll tell, you the food problems we had— It's bad enough the military has a certain style of one kind of food and if somebody can't get along with it that's terrible. Sometimes the food was fairly decent, but when you have to put up with a man who says he tampered with your food sexually and you're at work and you deserve that meal and you don't have anything else to eat— Shame on that. Not shame on a person who's come to help a flood victim or an ice storm victim. No, no. We cannot confuse the two and make them compete.

I would like you, Judi Longfield, to retract your comments on Maclean's magazine. I sure love it when somebody throws me a lifeboat, or even for that matter a life ring.

Thank you.

• 2035

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Sergeant Michael Martino.

Sergeant Michael Martino (Individual Presentation): Hello. I'll be quite brief here.

Since a number of people have brought up the plight of the military families, I'd just like to say that for the single member, particularly in the Ottawa area, it's extremely difficult.

As a young soldier when I first joined, I had barracks, as a matter of fact I was compelled to live in barracks for six months, which at the time of course I resented. But thinking back on it, it was probably a good idea. At least it allowed me to get familiar with the community before I was thrust out into trying to find rental housing.

Here of course we don't have that option. Particularly for private soldiers and junior officers, whose pay is somewhat under the national average, trying to find housing in the Ottawa area is nearly impossible—at least to find affordable, liveable housing. As miserable as things are in PMQs, for what the average private soldier can afford for an apartment, it's not too good for them either. That's the only point I wanted to make.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Sergeant, I have one question for you. If you were to be sitting on our committee and you had to recommend a pay hike, what would you recommend?

Sgt Michael Martino: What would I want, or what would I recommend?

The Chairman: What you would recommend.

Sgt Michael Martino: It's really difficult to say, sir, because the conditions are so different across Canada. Actually, I thought about this earlier, and I thought it might be a good summation point. I don't need a pay raise. If I was properly equipped and properly trained and basically appreciated and taken care of, of course, I think I would feel fine about it, if I had the benefits that say Ms. Johnston mentioned about the American army's benefits. However, being that we're left to fend for ourselves, a good suggestion is 25%.

The Chairman: We've heard that one before.

Sgt Michael Martino: Any pay raise over 5% would certainly be nice. I don't think many of us have seen anything like that in some time.

The Chairman: When you say “if you were properly cared for”, what do you mean by that?

Sgt Michael Martino: For example, in terms of the point I made about barracks, when I first joined as an infantry soldier, we had housing that was inexpensive. We had our food, which, again, we paid for, but it was inexpensive and it didn't matter where in Canada you were, you essentially paid the same amount. In terms of medical care, recently, actually in the last three years—maybe it's something about the air in Ottawa—I've had the opportunity to avail myself of the services at NDMC. About a year and a half ago, the services were outstanding. In the last month, definitely, I've spent most of my time sitting around the Ottawa General waiting for service there.

In regard to basically any of the benefits that one would think soldiers would get, that soldiers do get in most other countries, we're treated as if this is just another civil service job. In other words, as civil servants we're responsible for our own affairs. Unfortunately, the upheaval of moving, the upheaval of serving overseas, makes it difficult for us to take care of ourselves in all respects that a normal stable job would allow.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Sgt Michael Martino: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Chief Warrant Officer Nick Zacharuk.

• 2040

Chief Warrant Officer Nick Zacharuk (Individual Presentation): Good evening, gentlemen.

I wasn't going to come up and say anything, but I've sat here all afternoon and listened to some personal vendettas and some very good points made by a couple of officers who showed up. Here in Ottawa we have 7,000 military people and roughly 200 full colonels. I have 190 chief warrant officers, and I don't see too many of them here listening to some of these complaints and suggestions, which makes me very embarrassed.

In 24 days I'll have 36 years' service in the Canadian Forces. I joined when I was 16 and I've had a damn good life. I started at $15 every two weeks. Yes, I delivered furniture in the summer when I was on leave because I got married young and the pay wasn't that good. It was okay, but I wanted a few extras. I know you've been across Canada. You've gone to the combat arms bases of Petawawa and Shilo, and out to Esquimalt. We have corporals, junior ranks and senior NCOs in some cases delivering pizza, driving taxis, etc.

I'm getting out because I volunteered to get out. It's not feasible to keep working. I can make more money, because my taxes will go down, staying at home and getting 70% of my pay than I can by staying in.

I think the next three years will see a big change in the Canadian Forces. The majority of our leadership is quite good and they're going to steer us in the right direction.

I want to reinforce what you've already heard across Canada—that our pay isn't great; we need more pay. Our housing needs to be looked at, and some of our benefits need to be looked at. You members of Parliament are the ones who are able to do this. You won't change my lifestyle, unless you give a retroactive raise back to April and it increases my severance pay.

My severance pay is a pretty good package, although it's not a lot of money. The government has managed to keep that from the time I had 30 years' service, so they've kept my severance package for six years. If they had given me that severance package when I was eligible for it after 30 years, I could have invested that and maybe not doubled it, but added another $15,000 or $20,000 with some smart investing.

I've paid unemployment insurance for 36 years. I am never going to see it. Even if I go to work again and qualify for unemployment, I'll never see it because of my pension. I have to tell you, I've paid a lot of money in unemployment insurance. I think that's something that should be looked at.

On income tax across Canada, a chief warrant officer posted to Quebec earns as much, after he pays Quebec income tax, as a warrant officer here. If you get posted to Quebec you get to speak French. I was lucky. I had two courses in French and got employed in Quebec for a maximum of six years. My wife lost her job because she didn't speak French and my children lost two years of education because their education system is different. We have to do something for the dependants when we post a military member to Quebec.

I wanted to say you're not going to affect my life whatsoever, but as a chief warrant officer I'm responsible for the people below me, and the most concern I have is for the junior ranks. I happen to have a son in the junior ranks. He's in your riding, sir, down in Petawawa. His wife can't get a job down there. It's not because she's educated, but because there are no jobs down there, and the government isn't doing anything about it.

My son's on his fifth UN tour and second tour in Yugoslavia. He's figured out that's two and a half years out of his life in the last five. He hasn't complained. He's getting good benefits over there. Yes, he's putting his life on the line. Hopefully he won't get killed. His wife is back here looking after their daughter. She's doing fine. The military resource centre in Petawawa is excellent. The bases look after their people; the rear parties look after their people.

Here in NDHQ there's a bit of a different problem. We send people on peacekeeping tours here. The family resource centre is there for the people only if the military member lets the family resource centre know they're going away.

• 2045

Yes, there are lists and nominal rules available in NDHQ. You've just been asking the wrong people. There are 200 colonels in NDHQ and they're all directors. They all know who's working for them—if they don't, they should.

The last thing I want to say, sir, is I met you in Dieppe and I know you're a straight shooter. I've talked to you over there and I've seen the other MPs from Parliament on tours in the Battle of the Atlantic, Vimy Ridge, etc. Yes, we are more respected in the foreign lands we go to than we are here in Canada. Yes, Maclean's has a big magazine; they're selling papers. Everybody has their problems and we're trying to clear them up. We're not all bad.

We need you, gentlemen and ma'am, to go back to Parliament, table your report and push it down the throats of people who can do something for us. I hope you do.

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Chief Petty Officer First Class Ron Wastrodowski.

Chief Petty Officer First Class Ron Wastrodowski (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen.

I am here because there are serious problems with the DND to do with cost moves, the DND move contracts, and the interest rate differential.

Recently I was moved from Victoria to Halifax. I was eight months in Halifax and then I was posted to Ottawa as one of the evil career managers. About ten months after I got here, I had a call from Prudential Relocation Services that I owed them over $6,000—the interest rate differential.

Prudential had been audited by DND, which found they had paid about $175,000 in error to people who perhaps weren't entitled to have this cost reimbursed to them through the relocation services. We've now engaged the services of a lawyer because they demanded payment right away. We said they had to prove it. They said they didn't have to and we had to pay. Now we have a lawyer and we're going to take it to court to fight it.

This has happened to approximately 100 people just in the last year. Some of these people have just taken out loans and paid it, and it's wrong.

The DND moves we get are extremely poor quality. In the two moves I've had in the last year and a half, my furniture has been destroyed. We've had to fight tooth and nail with the insurance company, which is actually part of the movers. It took eight months to settle our last claim. It's atrocious. Nobody's there looking after the people who are forced to move due to service requirements.

In addition, I've heard from several people tonight about spousal employment. When I was posted, my wife had to give up her job and move to Halifax. There are no jobs in Halifax. Employment is extremely difficult. We were there a short period of time, and because of mobility they just wouldn't hire her, because she was only going to be there for a short period of time.

Fortunately the employment situation is considerably better here in Ottawa, and we now have two incomes. There is the prospect of going back to Victoria in a reasonable period of time, and we're not looking forward to it. The cost of living there is considerably more, as is the cost of housing. You know from your stay in Victoria some of the problems that are there. You can afford to buy a house here in Ottawa, but when you get back to Victoria it's extremely difficult.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Which department of DND is requesting this $6,000?

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: It's not a department within DND. Prudential Relocation Services is contracted by DND to look after people's moves—to pay for their houses and associated real estate costs. Once that contract is signed between you and Prudential, DND is out of it.

• 2050

Prudential bid on the contract and got it. They didn't read the fine print or actually didn't even read the QR&Os and the CFAOs about the relocation, and just took the contract. When they were audited, they found the problem.

It's not DND that's after the money, it's Prudential, because the contract is between Prudential and me. Treasury Board is the one that sets the rules for interest rate differential and payment of interest for pay-out of a loan, a mortgage.

The Chairman: And when you read the fine print, it was written in there about, in your case, the $6,000 that you had to pay back.

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: Correct. It's a CFAO, and DND will not reimburse that interest rate differential, but they will reimburse up to six months' interest penalty, which in most cases would be more. So the whole policy is skewed.

The Chairman: Could I see a copy of that contract you signed?

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: I don't have it with me. My lawyer has it.

The Chairman: Could you get a copy for me?

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: Yes, I will. I believe the committee is going to be up in the career management shop in the next little while, so I will have that in my office.

The Chairman: Next Wednesday.

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: Okay.

The Chairman: So you can have it?

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: I will have it there, ready. I will have all the documentation.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

CPO1 Ron Wastrodowski: You're welcome.

The Chairman: Colleagues, that was the last witness.

We're very happy that you people have come out to help us with our report. I must say we're ending a bit earlier than usual, but we've had a very long day and it's very nice to be able to get home a little earlier.

Again, thank you very much for your presentations. It will help us quite a bit when we write up our report. Thank you very much.

Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Pratt and I were wondering, how do we get more of these?

Ms. Sheila Johnston: That's a long story. I was asked to do that book about six months ago. DND did an initial run of about 20,000 copies in English and I believe about 7,000 copies in French. The powers that be on the civilian side of the house decided this was not a worthwhile project and said that we could no longer print them at the expense of the Canadian government.

So now what has happened is the director of the military family support system is in the process of doing a second run, and they will be selling them for $1.10 each. So it's just a matter of contacting DMSS, or contacting Linda or me at the MFRC and we can take orders.

I would add, though, in regard to children in this country, I agree so much with what Mr. Clouthier is saying. I don't understand why you have to wait until third-year university before you can take a Canadian military history class. I find that absolutely stunning.

A large part of what I've been trying to do in the last few months is to introduce the military into the school system. As I said earlier, the teachers and the boards of education can't get enough of this, but there's no funding to have these sorts of projects implemented.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Sheila, it's certainly something I would like to deliver to every school in my riding and have copies in my constituency office.

I have to tell you, when I was in Bosnia—I can't remember which base we were on—we walked in and there was this wonderful letter from school children to Canadian Forces members, with a number of pictures. I know that's something you've been involved in.

The Chairman: It was in your riding.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: It came from my riding. I'm in the process of contacting the teacher, and I want to go and visit and bring back pictures.

But it is something that should be in every school, and I think each of us here would take on the responsibility of delivering it to the ones in our own respective ridings. So we'll definitely place orders.

Ms. Sheila Johnston: Thank you.

Mr. David Pratt: Put me down for a couple of hundred copies.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. I'd like the same.

• 2055

The Chairman: Major Nicole Vallée, would you come back to the microphone, please?

Mr. John Richardson: Nicole, I'd like to ask you one or two questions.

We've heard a lot across the way, but we've been hearing mainly from the regular force side of the house. But the pay situation we're hearing about in the reserves, from recruits to commanding officers, seems to be a disaster. It is now about ten years into the same program, or supposedly built on that program. What is the essential problem with this program? Was it rotten from the start, or is it that any kinds of amendments to this program are not workable?

People who are paid for an honest day's work should be getting their pay on time.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Yes, they should.

Mr. John Richardson: We're hearing it everywhere, except when we stop at the regular force base.

I know you've had experience in this. What do you see as the fundamental flaw in the system?

Maj Nicole Vallée: I believe the fundamental flaw in the system, sir, is that you have people who have no knowledge of a reservist and what makes a reservist tick. From the time he or she enrols, the process of enrolment, to going on his first course, to staying in the reserves, to doing the cycle of a full year in a standard reserve unit and feeling that he or she is getting a fair shake, what happens is you have people, staff officers and staff workers, who are trying to do their best with their own knowledge of the Canadian Forces. Their knowledge is good in a regular force environment.

You take them and you ask them to manage reservists, and what I've seen is when a reservist says something like you can't do that in the reserve force, you're a master of impossibilities; you don't understand the real world. You're not really versed in the real stuff, because you're just a reservist and you don't know how the real force works.

With 24 years of full-time service, I've had a lot of that told to me, and I've also seen some very competent people try to pass on corporate knowledge, reserve corporate knowledge, even if it's only within their own little section, work team, and so on, and it's not received at face value. It's not pursued.

Often it's not because there's a lack of will; it's a lack of understanding on either part. It's a we-and-they syndrome that gets worse and worse as you progress in rank and in position.

You look at the average general in the Canadian Armed Forces today. They have never served with the reserves, and if they have, they did a one- or maybe two-year tour as an RSF officer, and he was punching his ticket. Go, go, go. He never dropped a pay; he never got the hassle; he never had to compete with two different jobs and the family and the juggling and all those things. So there are things he simply doesn't understand.

How do you make it better? I would think if you put reservists— I'm not saying it would be easy to find reservists. As you know, sir, I've hired hundreds of reservists throughout my career, and they are getting rarer and rarer, because you don't get paid; you don't get treated properly.

I would even tend to say that it's getting worse rather than better, because I saw some very big changes through the years out of Saint-Hubert, where I work, and people were getting places. When I came to Ottawa, I could not believe how a reservist was treated administratively. In my section, face value, you're a major; do your job. Thank you very much. Here's your PER; here's your pay, probably.

When I talk pay to my boss, he doesn't know what I'm talking about. He doesn't know what pays me. He doesn't even feel that he can fend for me, because he needs to know too much to know why I'm having a problem. If he has a triple-A problem, or anybody else in the section, he'll simply grab the phone and call the pay officer and say “Could you look into this, please?” Well, I don't have a pay officer, and nobody is doing anything to give me one.

• 2100

Now, as a major, I'm okay, but if I'm a corporal on the armoury floor, there is no way anybody's going to do anything for me. We don't have an ombudsman for troop number one. There's no source.

Look at the pension problem I brought up: Ten years, no progress. And many among the leadership out there believe the reserve force retirement gratuity is equivalent to a pension. One would have thought they would have called it a severance pay. Then they could have said, “Oh, severance pay! I know what that is. That rings a bell for me.” No. Reserve force retirement gratuity is a severance pay that has led the leadership to believe it's a pension, or it's in lieu of a pension.

Get a team that wants to make it work. As Mr. Bertrand said, get reservists there.

Mr. John Richardson: Since this is coast to coast to coast, this must be a “dissatisfier” for recruiting, because certainly these people who are not being paid are going to talk in the community. It's like working in Oshawa for General Motors when they don't pay you. I wonder if they'd be back there the third week if they were not getting paid.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Absolutely.

Mr. John Richardson: We've been hearing this from Halifax to Vancouver. We've been hearing it in the west and we've been hearing it in the east.

Maj Nicole Vallée: We had a very bad situation with the pay system that's paying us now. It was atrocious in the Maritimes. I've spoken with COs personally who've said it disseminated their unit. They felt powerless about doing anything about it.

We, DND—and I don't know who “we” is—took this and applied it across the country systematically. To what end, I don't know. I don't know why we did it. We had a reserve data system that was paying people 98% accurately. Instead of using that pay system, we extended a system that didn't work.

Over and above that, we introduced triple-A at 85%, say, changed the incentive pay structure, and did some new things with SISIP, although I'm not exactly sure what. I don't know who could cope with that effectively. No matter what rank, no matter where they're working from, no matter what will, I think you'd need a SWAT team, and I'm not sure you'd need money. I think a lot of money is being put toward this, and it's just not going anywhere.

Mr. John Richardson: I want to thank you for clarifying some of that. Certainly it's something that has to be resolved or we're going to have no reserves—in the navy, army or air force.

Maj Nicole Vallée: Or very dissatisfied ones sometimes.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

I also want to thank Captain Harper for the hospitality and the good meal this evening.

Thank you very much to all of you, and good night.