NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

• 1910

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to our town hall meeting here this evening.

Just to give you a few ideas on how things are going to be done this evening, I have a list of speakers who want to come up. For those of you who want to speak but have not given your names yet, I would ask you to give your name to Sharon at the back.

[Translation]

You may obtain earphones for listening to the translation from Sharon.

[English]

Also, the way we usually start off is that I ask all the MPs sitting here to introduce themselves.

[Translation]

I am going to ask all the MPs to introduce themselves.

[English]

We will do this right away. I will start with Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): Good evening. My name is Pierrette Venne and I am the Bloc Québecois member for the riding of Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert.

[English]

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): I'm Bob Wood, MP for Nipissing.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): I'm just on time.

My name is John Richardson. I'm the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, and the member of Parliament for Perth—Middlesex near London, Ontario.

The Chairman: My name is Robert Bertrand. My riding is Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, just across the river from here. I'm the chairman of the committee.

[Translation]

We will now move right on to hearing from our witnesses. Corporal Michael Kyte, please.

[English]

Corporal, we'll let you make your presentation. If the MPs have any questions for you, then that's how we'll do it. Go ahead.

Corporal Michael Kyte (Individual Presentation): Thank you, sir. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Corporal Kyte from CFS Leitrim.

After being here today, I feel that some of the items I want to talk about may be a little trivial compared to those of some of the other people who were here earlier today. At the same time, these are things that during coffee breaks at work we sit around and talk about that cause us a little bit of concern. I have six items that I would like to discuss.

The first is accommodation assistance allowance. This is to provide financial support in areas of high rent. It's based on the number of dependants that each service person has. The reason for this is that the more dependants you have, of course the larger house you have and the higher your rent is.

However, some of us, such as myself, who have partial custody of a child, end up with prorated accommodation assistance. If I have my daughter 10 days of the month, I receive 10 days of accommodation assistance; however, when she goes home, my rent doesn't go down as I still have the same size house. The fact that it's prorated is a bit of a concern for some of us.

Here's one other thing with accommodation assistance. Because it's based on a high-rent area, I feel it punishes people who want to buy homes. The second you buy a home, you lose your accommodation assistance.

The second item I would like to talk about are Alert benefits. I work in a place where we do repeated tours of Alert, so the financial benefits really affect us. A recent study done by CFSRSHQ, which is the authority over Alert, pointed out that the stress level in Alert is higher than it is in present UN peacekeeping tours.

In my next tour of Alert, I'm going to be making $ 240 extra a month after taxes. This is compared to sometimes in excess of $ 1,000 a month tax-free for UN tours. On top of that, when I go to Alert I don't come home for the entire tour. Those on UN tours usually get to come home for leave. That leave also does not come off their annual leave, it's UN leave, and their trips home are paid for. I just find it a little strange that the UN would treat Canadian soldiers better than the Canadian government would.

• 1915

The third item I would like to mention is our new annual leave policy. At this point in time we have 25 days of annual leave, and we're pretty much forced to use it every year. In general, that's not a problem. However, when a person goes on a tour of duty or a temporary duty over the summer months, they may come home in September or October, and between September and March be forced to use five weeks' holidays. Of course their kids are in school at that time and their spouses may be working, so sometimes it causes a lot of problems—five weeks' leave and no one to spend the time with. My understanding of the policy now is that commanding officers are allowed to grant that you save up to five days' leave. However, they're very much reluctant to do so.

The next item I'd like to talk about is dress. Canada, as everyone knows, has extreme winters, but the Canadian Forces were nice enough to issue me a nice warm parka. However, I'm not allowed to wear it. I'm in the air force, and my parka is combat green. I guess they've decided that the green parka and the blue force dress don't go together. I'm not much into fashion, but I can understand that. At the same time, when I do wear combat clothes—my green clothes—I'm forced to wear a blue beret.

I'd like to touch on our pay incentives. At each rank level we receive a certain amount of pay incentives. As a corporal, I receive four yearly incentives. At this point in time promotions are pretty much non-existent in some trades, so after four years I can expect no more pay raises until I get promoted. In my trade, the average corporal has 12 or 14 years in.

I think it may be an idea to look at increasing the amount of pay incentives, and perhaps the pay ceiling at each rank level, to allow people to continue their standard of living as inflation continues.

The last thing I would like to talk about is something that was presented to me at work. It was found on the DND LAN. I dropped off a paper earlier today; I don't know if anyone had a chance to see it. It had a listing of all of our pay raises, as well as pay comparison with foreign armed forces. The problem I see with this is that whoever made this up was very creative. My concern is, where is this going? Being creative, is it going to Treasury Board? Is it going to somebody who is deciding whether or not we get pay raises, and how much?

For example, this paperwork shows that from 1996 to 1999 a corporal would receive a 25.1% pay raise. However, this includes yearly incentives. I would like to point out that recruiting has pretty much dried up in the last few years. Most corporals have already reached their full incentive. We aren't getting incentives.

From my calculations, this 25.1% pay raise is actually only a 13.1% pay raise for most corporals. In fact, every corporal I work with is not receiving the 25.1%.

The next slide shows master corporals also having a 25.2% pay raise. However, a person, when promoted to master corporal, takes their yearly incentive level from corporal with them. Therefore it's impossible for them to receive a 25.2% pay raise. My calculations on that showed they also received 13.1%.

There is also a slide that indicated that a corporal in the Canadian Armed Forces receives about twice the pay of the equivalent rank in the U.S. armed forces. I found this also to be very creative. The slide did have a few notes at the bottom, but I don't feel they explained it fully.

A corporal in our armed forces, by NATO equivalent, is equal to an E-4 in the U.S. Air Force. An E-4 has three years in. This slide shows a pay rate of a corporal with eight years in, so there's obviously five years' difference in experience, and that would be reflected in pay.

The slide also very clearly indicates that housing was not included. An E-4 in the U.S. armed forces does not pay rent for his married quarters. My rent, being $ 500 a month, works out to $ 6,000 a year after taxes. Before taxes, it's about $ 10,000. By the time all this is figured in, our pay rates are pretty much comparable.

• 1920

All this said, my concern only is, where is this paper going to? Who's seeing it? Is it being used to figure out our pay raise, what we should have and what we should not have?

Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: First of all, can you drop that off? I don't think any of us have seen the pay scale you were referring to.

Cpl Michael Kyte: We've put it in the package.

Mr. Bob Wood: All right. Thank you.

You were talking about Alert benefits and the stress level. Did they give you any reason why the stress level is so high in Alert?

Cpl Michael Kyte: Well, sir, a lot of it has to do with the fact that you're up there in complete isolation. If you're doing a winter tour, you're putting up with four months of complete darkness. Although we're within Canada, you wouldn't know it, being up there. You deal with the same 60 or 70 people every day. You can be up there for up to six months without going home, without seeing McDonald's—just all the little things.

Of course, UN tours also have a different type of stress, but this study showed that those who had done both UN tours and Alert tours found Alert tours to be more stressful.

Mr. Bob Wood: You talked about triple-A being prorated, and you're obviously divorced or separated and have your daughter part of the time.

Cpl Michael Kyte: Yes, sir.

Mr. Bob Wood: There are just so many days that you're allowed to get this; is this how it works?

Cpl Michael Kyte: What happens with my triple-A is, I claim triple-A for myself—my accommodation assistance—and if I have one dependant, it goes up by $ 50, for example. If I have my daughter 15 days that month, I collect 50% of the $ 50, and if I have her for the entire month, I collect the entire $ 50. However, if I don't have her, I still have to have her bedroom. I don't save any money on rent. The whole purpose of it is to help me subsidize my rent in a high-rent area.

Mr. Bob Wood: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Richardson, did you have a question?

Mr. John Richardson: Yes.

There were a couple of things you brought up, and you think they're pretty small, but they're very important in the life of a corporal or a private in the forces, and anyone who's affected by pay and allowances, leave policy, or any other incentives, because you plan on them.

One of the things you mentioned was your annual leave policy. You mentioned that the CO can make some decisions in favour of you or not, based on the case you present. Could you elaborate a bit on the flexibility of annual leave?

Cpl Michael Kyte: Yes, sir. My understanding is that a commanding officer can allow us to save a maximum of five days and have that accumulate for future use. The problem with it is—and of course this is my understanding, I'm no expert on leave policy—if he's to grant us five days' annual leave, the five days' pay comes out of his budget, although when we do use it, we may be working elsewhere under someone else's command. Because it's coming out of their budget, they're very, very reluctant to allow you to save any leave. They'd much rather have you spend three weeks in February off at home rather than save the leave for a time when you can use it with your family.

Mr. John Richardson: I guess it's kind of a spring-loaded arrangement—it stretches, but also there's the snap-back for the CO if he gives you the leave, because his budget is going to be short by that much money.

I'm not sure of this, but I would guess that the CO, when that money was set aside—and whatever it would be; perhaps in some general account for use to assist people—would have factored that into his budgets.

Cpl Michael Kyte: I have no idea, sir. Since this policy has come into effect, I know of no one who's been able to accumulate any leave.

Mr. John Richardson: I see. Thank you very much.

Cpl Michael Kyte: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Corporal, how many tours have you done in Alert?

Cpl Michael Kyte: I've been up there three times for a total of seven months, and I'm going back up in August, sir.

The Chairman: I know you mentioned it at at the beginning, but what exactly do you do up there?

• 1925

Cpl Michael Kyte: I'm an electronics technician, sir.

The Chairman: How many service flights go into Alert per week?

Cpl Michael Kyte: Every Wednesday, sir.

The Chairman: What kind of aircraft?

Cpl Michael Kyte: Hercules.

The Chairman: Is it always Hercules?

Cpl Michael Kyte: My understanding is they've had a Challenger in there and perhaps a 727 once or twice over the years.

The Chairman: I have another question on the green parka. Do you get to wear it up in Alert?

Cpl Michael Kyte: Yes, we do, sir.

The Chairman: So colours don't matter up there.

Cpl Michael Kyte: No, they don't, sir.

The Chairman: I see, as long as it's warm.

Cpl Michael Kyte: It's warm, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Cpl Michael Kyte: Thanks, Ma'am; thanks, gentlemen.

The Chairman: Sergeant Mike Bonin.

Sergeant Mike Bonin (Individual Presentation): Bonsoir, mesdames et messieurs. I have two points I'd like to bring up this evening. I'm Sergeant Mike Bonin from the Canadian Forces photo unit.

My first point is that $ 3.75 million is what the armed forces spends annually on people in Ottawa who are separated from their families due to postings. These are people who, through one choice or another, have decided to leave their families behind in another location and be posted to Ottawa on their own. If career managers did a better job at looking after the troops, looking at positions, and looking at the postings, they'd be able to save all this money. And this is just the Ottawa area alone.

My second point concerns redress of grievance procedures. As a redress goes higher and higher up the chain of command, the duration is longer and longer. This is a frustrating point, because at the time you need the action, you need the answer, and it's taking longer and longer for resolve. Quite often, by the time a person gets an answer, it's usually too late for action to take place. I'd like to see that revamped and made more efficient and more expedient.

Those are my two points. Thank you.

The Chairman: Sergeant, Madame Venne has a question for you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: I would like to ask you how much you get for being separated from your wife when you are in Ottawa. Is it a set amount?

Sgt Mike Bonin: For me personally?

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Yes, for you.

Sgt Mike Bonin: I have been here for 10 months, but a posting can last up to one, two or even three years, depending on the kind of career and people's situation.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Did I understand correctly that you are receiving an additional amount because you are separated from your wife?

Sgt Mike Bonin: Yes, Ma'am.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: What is that amount?

Sgt Mike Bonin: I get $ 450 for food. The government also pays the rent on my apartment, which in my case is $ 900.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: And this amount covers what period?

Sgt Mike Bonin: It is a monthly allowance. Each of the 250 people living in Ottawa receive $ 1,250 a month, which comes to $ 3.75 million a year.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: In Ottawa alone, $ 3.75 million is being spent on people who are separated from their spouses?

Sgt Mike Bonin: Yes.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Is this kind of separation allowance being paid on other bases? I must admit this is the first I have heard of an allowance being paid to a separated spouse. Maybe it is because I have not travelled to all the committee meetings, although I have visited quite a few places.

• 1930

Sgt Mike Bonin: One of the reasons this allowance is paid is because there is no barrack in Ottawa. All soldiers must live in an apartment, a hotel room or similar accommodation, because there is no barrack.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: So this separation allowance is perhaps not paid everywhere.

Sgt Mike Bonin: No, Ma'am.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Fine. That is what I wished to know. Thank you.

Sgt Mike Bonin: Right.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[English]

Sgt Mike Bonin: Thank you.

The Chairman: Major Neville Headley.

Major Neville Headley (Individual Presentation): Good evening. My name is Major Neville Headley. I'm a dental officer, and I work currently here in Ottawa. I've been serving for 20 years in the forces. I grew up in the forces as well in that my father was a dental officer, so I'm a second-generation dental officer in the Canadian Forces.

My reason for being here tonight is to give you the opportunity to ask me some questions, because I don't know if, in your travels, you've had an opportunity to ask a dental officer any questions with respect to the important work you're doing.

Giving you a chance to formulate some of your questions, I'll just tell you a little bit more about my situation.

As I mentioned, I'm in my 20th year, coming up on it in September, and giving strong consideration to perhaps going into private practice. I've known since grade 4 that I wanted to be a dental officer, and I always envisioned a full career, to age 55 or whatever, in the forces. I didn't expect that when I came up on my 20th year, I'd be giving strong consideration to moving into the private sector.

My education I received through the dental officer training plan program, which is the most outstanding way to receive a dental education. I've also been able to benefit from the post-graduate training I've received as well, spending two years in Fort Knox, Kentucky.

I just returned from Winnipeg, where one of the responsibilities I had was a teaching responsibility for providing some additional educational training to some of our young dental officers. What I saw was a group of very dedicated, highly motivated, very intelligent individuals who are still prepared to soldier on. One of the benefits of teaching is the feedback you get from your students and the input you provide. It was heart-warming to recognize that they are still highly motivated, enthusiastic, and energetic. Perhaps that's partly due to the outstanding instructor corps we have there, and also the wonderful facility we have at CFB Winnipeg.

Our Winnipeg dental clinic is probably the most state-of-the-art dental clinic in our system and is superior to many you'll find in the private practice environment. So we do have the equipment, we do have the tools, and we do have the people to provide high-quality dental care in the forces.

Something has changed, though, in our manpower situation, as a result of the restructuring that's going on. In some particular locations it's getting harder and harder to provide the same level of dental care we used to. We're trying to do our best, however, because that's essentially our mandate, our goal, and our mission.

So with that, I'll turn the floor back over to you. If you do have any questions you want to pose to somebody with my background, I'll be very happy to entertain your questions.

The Chairman: I have a couple of questions for you, Major. You said you're a dental officer.

Maj Neville Headley: Correct.

The Chairman: Is that equivalent to a dentist?

Maj Neville Headley: Yes.

The Chairman: So you're a dentist.

Maj Neville Headley: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay. And you've been in it for 20 years and you're thinking of getting out.

Maj Neville Headley: That's correct.

The Chairman: Why is that?

Maj Neville Headley: In my situation it boils down to what I term family obligations. That's perhaps an umbrella term for the fact that it's becoming more difficult for my family in terms of the moving that's required in this day and age, from posting to posting. As a result, I think perhaps my decision is going to be based largely upon a desire to provide a little bit more stability in terms of geographical location for the family.

• 1935

The Chairman: One last question from me. Does a dental officer and major get the same salary as a regular major, for instance, or do you get extra pay because you're a dentist?

Maj Neville Headley: We receive specialist pay as dental officers, specifically, and in my case I do receive some additional compensation because of my specialty training.

The Chairman: How much do you get a year?

Maj Neville Headley: Before taxes, the compensation is approximately $ 8,500 a month.

The Chairman: Over and above what you receive as...?

Maj Neville Headley: No, that's in full.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you.

John, you had a question.

Mr. John Richardson: I have some simple questions.

In the role of specialist, you come in with a large wealth of knowledge and proficiency in your profession. I'm just trying to tie it all together. I understand why the career postings in the combat arms and the support combat arms, because it allows them to gain experience and to be tested in leadership and the skills they have. Over the years, they accumulate a broad-based career that may lead them to senior leadership or some major administrative posting. As a professional, I can understand you going back to the dental school or the dental clinic for refresher work, or for teaching as a professional, but why is it so necessary to post you in the same manner we post combat soldiers or air personnel, or naval people, for that matter?

Maj Neville Headley: One of the reasons that has been identified is that you start off as a young captain, and there's this sense that you get experience at the chair for a few years. If you demonstrate the necessary skills and aptitude for assuming perhaps a more senior leadership position, then you'll be put in a situation where you become second in command, and receive a little bit more administrative training. Once again, if you demonstrate the aptitude there, then you're ready for perhaps a more senior position of leadership. It probably wouldn't be still in the same location at which you're located, so there might be a necessity there.

There also has been the philosophy of providing us with increased backgrounds—not only working in, say, an army base, but also working in a naval station, or a wing. The type of dentistry that can be provided in those different locations, army, navy, or air force, is subtly different, so we gain experience in that way.

You could work in a small clinic, with one or two chairs, you could work in a medium-sized clinic, with four or five personnel, or you could work in a really large clinic, where there are perhaps seven or eight different dentists and a staff of over thirty. You can benefit from what we call our “centres of excellence”, where you have a collection of specialist officers. They try to perhaps move, say, an oral surgeon, a periodontist, etc., and a general dentist all into one clinic—Halifax, for example, or here in Ottawa.

Those are just some of the reasons you could be posted to different locations.

Then there's the opportunity to gain operational experience. For example, you can't necessarily gain that type of operational experience if you're in Cold Lake, whereas there is the opportunity if you're posted to, say, Edmonton, Petawawa, or Gagetown.

Mr. John Richardson: Have you ever worked out of a dental van in an operational theatre?

Maj Neville Headley: I have, actually. It wasn't necessarily in an operational theatre but in some of our training areas—Gagetown, Wainwright, Suffield, that type of thing.

• 1940

Once again, it's an outstanding piece of kit, second to none. There's pretty much nothing we cannot do, and comfortably, in those facilities.

I worked in the older one when I first started. We got newer vans in the mid-1980s. They'll go through anything. They'll go anywhere. They allow us to do what we need to do.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: David.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, but Mr. Richardson has been kind enough to ask all my questions.

The Chairman: Madame Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Is dental treatment free? When military personnel go to see you, do they have to pay or is the cost credited to their salary? How does it work?

[English]

Maj Neville Headley: All dental treatment we provide for our military personnel is free of charge.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: If you leave after 20 years, as you are thinking of doing, you will no doubt receive an Armed Forces pension. Do you know how much it will be?

[English]

Maj Neville Headley: The pension, I believe, will be approximately $ 3,000 a month before taxes.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: So $ 36,000 per year.

Maj Neville Headley: Oui.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Do you think that a civilian dentist could provide the same treatment for military personnel as a military dentist, thus saving the Armed Forces money? I am not asking the question to be difficult.

[English]

Maj Neville Headley: No, but it's a very loaded question, perhaps.

A dentist who has the skills and the expertise to provide dentistry can provide for a patient, but a civilian dentist is in no position to be able to provide the operational requirements of the job. Consequently, there's a requirement to maintain military dentists who have the training to provide dentistry in operational settings.

Having said that, though, yes, there are qualified civilian practitioners who can work as part of our team in our dental clinics. That's in fact happening now, it has happened in the past, and I am sure it will continue to happen in the future.

I've come from a clinic in Winnipeg recently, and Greenwood and Halifax, and I've seen civilian practitioners, not only dentists but also hygienists and dental assistants, working closely with my military colleagues. We integrate very well with them, and conversely they with us, so it's not really a problem in that respect.

However, my feeling on the issue is that there still is a strong requirement for a dental officer, dental personnel, in uniform so that we can meet the entire mandate for DND.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: What do you mean by people who can meet the entire mandate for DND? What is the difference between an officer dentist and a civilian dentist?

[English]

Maj Neville Headley: Probably the largest difference is the ability of the military dental officer to not only prepare a unit to go over to Bosnia but also then to accompany them there and provide that treatment in the dental van.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: So, it would be particularly for missions to other countries?

[English]

Maj Neville Headley: Oui. That's correct.

Ms. Pierrette Venne: Merci.

The Chairman: One final question, Major. You're stationed in Ottawa now, are you?

Maj Neville Headley: That's correct.

The Chairman: What would your work schedule be for this week, for instance? How many hours? Are you on shift work, or how does it work?

• 1945

Maj Neville Headley: In the normal dental situation, it's basically 7.30 a.m. until 4 p.m. or, depending upon the clinic, 8 a.m. until 4 p.m., Monday through Friday. Then you rotate on call, depending upon the number of dental officers in that particular location. You carry around a beeper or a pager after hours and on weekends.

The Chairman: I see.

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have one further question.

How many dental officers are there in the Canadian Forces? Do you have any idea?

Maj Neville Headley: The entire dental corps is down to about 354. As for actual dental officers, it's probably less than 100 right now. As I say, that's a rough guesstimate.

Mr. David Pratt: Less than 100.

Maj Neville Headley: That would be my guess, or just over 100.

Mr. David Pratt: One other question. In terms of the amount of work you actually perform in a dental operating theatre versus the amount of administrative work you do, is it comparable to dentists who are in private practice? What's the situation there?

Maj Neville Headley: A lot of that is individual. An individual can choose to do more administration than, say, clinical dentistry if he wants to. If he wants to do a minimum amount of administrative work, enough so that the standard of the administrative work that he does is sufficient, and devote most of his time during working hours to the chair, that can be done. Yes, sometimes we take work home as well, and usually it's the administrative work we'll take home.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Monsieur Serge Duguay.

Warrant Officer Serge Duguay (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I am Warrant Officer Duguay. I have been with DND for 23 years and I presently work here in Ottawa. I am married with three children. My career has been challenging and at times very demanding.

I am proud to wear the uniform and to serve Canada. However, my commitment, pride and trust have diminished with the realization that the department is not as concerned for my well-being and that of my family as it should be.

I believe there are many issues that need to be resolved to improve the quality of life within the military community. Today I will emphasize only one. However, this issue is part of an accumulation of difficulties and frustrations that not only I but other military members and their families have to face today.

For example, in the last five years my family and I have been relocated twice. During that period I was separated from my family for two years. We sold two houses and lost money on both counts. Not only have my children had to deal with the long absence of a parent and the disruption of social life caused by two relocations, they also had to adjust to the curriculum differences involved with moves from one provincial educational system to another. My children have been seriously affected by this instability.

I was reunited with my family last year when we bought a house in the Ottawa region. My furniture and effects were moved last summer. Now, 10 months after the move, I am still fighting to obtain a fair and equitable claim settlement for the damage caused to my F&E by the moving company. This is the issue I wish to raise with you today.

Before the delivery of my furniture and effects, I was informed by personnel in the F&E section of the requirement to have the movers do the unpacking or I would not be eligible to claim for compensation for any damage done. Therefore, I asked the movers to unpack my furniture and effects.

In what I would call a very unprofessional manner, boxes were quickly and carelessly unpacked. After only half the boxes were unpacked and the contents scattered throughout the house, there was no room to move. In the middle of this chaos and after many comments from the unpackers that there was no more room to unpack anything else, I was asked to take a few minutes and list only damages that came out of a box. I was specifically told by the driver not to list any damaged items that were not packed in a box. For example, I showed them the damage to both of my couches where the top had been crushed. He told me to make sure to list this kind of damage on the intent to claim form, which would have to be forwarded to the company within 30 days. He provided me with the form.

• 1950

I later filed the intent to claim form and subsequently filed the actual claim. I estimated the loss and damage to my F&E of between $ 5,000 and $ 7,000.

In December I received a cheque in the amount of $ 260 and a letter from the company indicating that all damaged items not noted at the time of delivery were declined. I then sought the assistance of the F&E section. I was very surprised when personnel at the F&E counter told me that they hear similar stories on a daily basis. As a matter of fact, the person in line behind me had the same complaint. However, I was also informed that DND would not get involved in any claim settlement. It was my personal responsibility to deal with the moving company. I was also informed of my option to take direct legal action against the carrier. No efforts were made by F&E personnel to register my complaint.

I wrote a letter to the company explaining what had happened and I did not get a response. I contacted a military lawyer at the JAG office, who suggested I send a second letter demanding a response. They responded and offered a $ 500 settlement. They called this offer a gesture of goodwill. I declined their offer as it was less than 10% of the value of my loss.

I am now in the process of filing legal action against the company through small claims court in Ontario. My intention is to prove to the court that this was not an isolated case but a tactic routinely employed by the moving company to deceive customers into not claiming for full compensation.

I turned to DND to provide me with statistics of such cases. I knew from personnel at the F&E counter of the many complaints and also of the fact that DTM, the director of transportation and movement, in a recent article in their personnel newsletter admitted there were problems with the claim settlement process. I was referred to an officer at DTM and was told there were no statistics available and, I quote, “usually when something goes wrong, it is human nature to blame everyone else but ourselves”. Needless to say, I was astounded and disappointed at the department's reaction to my situation.

DND ordered me to move. I arranged for the carrier and paid for it. Why am I the one taking them to court? The financial hardship caused by the lost money on the housing market, the difficulty of the spouses to gain employment, and the stress of a move are hard enough to tolerate without having to go through the frustration of fighting court battles for a situation over which I have no direct control.

This is not an isolated incident. It affects many members in uniform and undermines the trust in leadership, in the department's ability and interest to take care of its people. It only further reduces the morale in a department where dedication and commitment are precious commodities.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Warrant Officer, how many years were you in the Canadian Armed Forces?

WO Serge Duguay: Twenty-three years.

The Chairman: How many times did you move, roughly?

WO Serge Duguay: Five times.

The Chairman: Was this the first time you've had damage done to your furniture?

WO Serge Duguay: No, sir. There's been a change in policy in the last few years. What happened in the the past, I believe, is that the military were always treated unprofessionally by the movers. However, there was a process where you had 30 days to claim. From the time of the last move to this one, what has changed is that if you do not claim right on the spot you're not eligible for anything that was damaged. Unfortunately, I believe the department did not make an extra effort to warn us of this, and also the carriers are using tactics to mislead people.

The Chairman: Which company did you use?

WO Serge Duguay: United.

The Chairman: What would you suggest we put in our report to fix this situation?

WO Serge Duguay: First of all, everyone has to go to the F&E counter when they move. There should be a red sign somewhere. There should be somebody or you should have to sign something, whatever it takes to warn you of this.

Secondly, if anybody has a complaint, it should be noted. For example, I went to the counter and spoke to the F&E personnel there, and they told me they hear this story all the time. However, nobody took my name. I went back a second time, and what I was told was that a lot of people come to the counter, complain, get frustrated and leave, and never come back. So this complaint never goes up, and that's one of the problems.

The other thing is the carriers should not be paid until the member is satisfied.

• 1955

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mrs. Venne.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: First of all, I would like you to know that we will certainly be making a report and submitting recommendations, some of which will probably deal with the issue you have just mentioned. But if ever the department decides not to take action, and you find yourselves having to do something, perhaps a class action would be an idea. This possibility surely exists in Ontario. In any case, it exists in Quebec. I would like to ask our research officer, Mr. Rossignol, whether a class action is possible in Ontario.

Mr. Michel Rossignol (committee research officer): Yes, I believe it is.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: A class action.

WO Serge Duguay: Yes, Ma'am. It is something I may eventually do if this case goes any further than small claims court.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Right. If ever National Defence and the armed forces ignore the situation you have described to us this evening, which seems to happen to quite a few military personnel who move, a class action should certainly be brought. I strongly encourage you to take that route.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Dan Chénard.

Mr. Daniel Chénard (Individual Presentation): Good evening, everyone. My name is Daniel Chénard and I am married to a soldier. I will be making my presentation in both official languages, starting with French. I would like to explain my personal situation.

[English]

The second part's going to be in English and I'm going to explain to you my position as mayor of the Uplands site community council.

[Translation]

I married a soldier in 1984 and knew what I was getting into. Since then, I have had to live with the changes and mood swings National Defence inflicts on its employees. In 1989, I too became a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. My wife was a corporal. I signed on as an officer. Even back then, I met with some hesitation because an officer marrying a junior rank was ill-viewed.

In 1988, I became a member of the community council on the Saint-Hubert base. I served as a councillor on the base for three and a half years. I was directly involved in the activities and various programs offered to members of the military community on the base.

In 1992, we were transferred here, to Ottawa. Naturally, because of the transfer, I had to leave my job, look after my children and become a house husband as it were. For a few months, I stayed at home and looked after the children so that my wife could arrange to have our family transferred here, to Ottawa.

Spouses have the impression that nobody gives a damn about us. My wife was posted here, to Ottawa, in July and fully compensated for her hotel and meal expenses. She was receiving over $ 2,000 a month because she was separated. We were giving consideration to the financial aspect of the transfer. We finally managed to find suitable housing, but we were not able to move in until November 1992.

• 2000

For over five months, we were separated and the children were torn when they saw their mother leave for work every Sunday evening and not come back until the following Friday evening. The armed forces were prepared to pay her over $ 2,000 a month for her hotel expenses here, in Ottawa, her meals and travel.

In 1995, the Ottawa base was closed. This was a hard blow to the community. We lost many services. I will go into this in greater detail a little later.

In 1996, I decided to become a member of the community council on the Uplands base in Ottawa South.

In 1997, my wife took part in a United Nations mission in Bosnia and had to leave home for six months. She worked with information services helping NATO forces. During that time, I had to quit my night job with a company here, in Ottawa. It was suggested that I find someone to look after my children and pay her to live in. Given the complications and stress that would have meant for my children, on top of their mother leaving for Bosnia, I decided to resign my position in order to be able to look after them better and minimize the disruptions related to this posting. When a spouse serves his or her country and takes part in peacekeeping missions, it is of course always the other spouse that pays. They are denied all the compensations that could help.

When my wife left for Bosnia, there was no support program of any sort for peacekeepers. Canada is recognized as a world leader in peacekeeping missions, but it has no support program for those who stay behind.

The various bases, such as Valcartier and Petawawa, have their own programs because they have acquired experience and often send troops overseas to take part in various peacekeeping contracts. Canada has been involved in peacekeeping in Cyprus and elsewhere for over 30 years now, I think, but no thought has ever been given to developing a support program for spouses who remain behind.

My situation is a bit unique because I am a civilian living with a soldier. It is so unique that the Ottawa Citizen published a story on my family and on the Military Family Resource Centre contact.

In 1998, I was elected mayor of the community council for the Uplands base in Ottawa South by the commander of SSU, Ottawa. I am the first civilian to hold this position, which was formerly held by senior NCOs or officers.

I would also like to point out that it is the spouse who suffers the most financially, personally and career-wise during postings. When my wife was transferred to Ottawa, I had to quit my job. I had been with the same employer for 10 years. When we came to Ottawa, I had to start all over again.

The first question I was asked was: "Are you married to someone in the military? Yes. When will she be transferred? No idea". My reply automatically has an impact on what potential employers decide.

[English]

Now I'm going to speak on behalf of Elizabeth Park Community Council. Before 1995, the Ottawa base was split in two. There was the north part and the south part. I have not been involved with Rockcliffe, which is north, so I'll be talking a little more about Ottawa south, which is Uplands.

Before 1995 and the closing of the base we were a thriving community. We had all the facilities and sport facilities. We had all the groups, the units on the base. There was a lot of stuff going on. Everybody knows that being in the military is a world of its own.

• 2005

The people who pay the price for all those moves and everything are not always those in the military themselves or the spouses. We have to think about the children. The children need a sense of belonging to something or someone.

Before 1995 we had everything. We had sports programs, arenas, swimming pools, ball diamonds and tennis courts. Then came the closing. In 1995 the government decided Ottawa didn't need a base, so they cut the funds.

When something that drastic happens, you would at least expect a transition period, which didn't happen with DND. They cut the funds and closed stuff, so we had to cope with going from having everything to having nothing on the site.

In the CFAO, which is the bible for the military, everything that concerns military activities falls back on the community council. We used to be able to provide services. We used to provide a lot of stuff for different people. I'm just going to tell you a little more about what used to be.

On the base we had all the technical support. We had transport and CE for maintenance. We had the messes and barracks on the site—that was brought up a little earlier this afternoon. We had a CANEX, a credit union and social centres. We had MPs patrolling the base. We had a base newspaper, a pool, a gym and sports facilities—I could keep going on like that.

Since 1995 we've lost over 50% of our capacity to offer services to our people. We've lost groups because there's no more funding. There are a lot of major problems going on and we're trying to address those problems. But of course, when you try to get stuff going they always have the same prerequisite—basically we need money. Of course, funding from DND has pretty much dried up. We have to rely on ourselves to offer the most with the minimum we have.

From the Uplands site we are trying to do the best we can with what we have. My goal, as a mayor, is to bring back a sense of community on the site because we all know we will be facing more financial cut-backs, but the role of the community council will become more important also. So we will have to manage our resources to answer the needs of our community.

On the site itself we have about 766 families, which is between 2,000 to 3,000 people I have to cater to. I have two employees at the office and we're trying to do our best with what we have. The only problem is, with all the restructuring the forces have faced with their bases, two big things were forgotten—Toronto and Ottawa.

Toronto is in the same boat as we are. It's different, but they have the same problems. They have a base in the big city. It seems that in the restructuring they did, they forgot to think about us.

Right now we're doing our best to address all the grief the people have. We are on the front line for what the people feel. At the end of each month, we have community council general meetings. Every month we hear the same problems coming up. All those problems are shared with us by the community members. The only problem is that it's out of our hands. We can do nothing about it, but we get all the frustrations.

I just hope this hearing will help everybody, and I have a deep wish that the recommendations the committee will be providing to the minister won't be shelved.

Thank you.

• 2010

The Chairman: Mr. Dan Haines.

Captain Dan Haines (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. It's actually Captain Haines. I'm an aerospace officer. I work out of Montreal. I just want to address a couple of points.

One thing raised last week was the obligatory service and the six-month waiting period for members. One of my associates was good enough to pass on some information I'd given him on that. I was wondering if you had any more questions on that.

My concern wasn't so much the way the military's dealing with it but the fact that you'd only heard it for the first time when my associate brought it up. This was the subject of a written report I'd sent in, so I guess one of my next questions is, where do they go? We were solicited to put in written reports. If you're not reading them, we'd like to know.

Along with this is the undue influence the Department of Defence can exert on their members in relation to the obligatory service and many other items. The department controls everything that goes on in the member's life. They control your sports facilities, your PMQ facilities and your contract. In the case of the obligatory service, there's a buy-out penalty that says if the member doesn't wish to serve for unforeseen circumstances, they can pay the remaining part back.

The only problem with that is the Department of Defence gets to decide whether you have unforeseen circumstances. They get to decide if your PMQs aren't good enough or if your pay is not good enough. So there's no other body looking at any of this, from our point of view.

If they control everything, if they control that you sign a contract and can hold you to the contract, if they can control your pay, cuts to the defence budget, your postings and everything else that goes with it, you're completely trapped. You're at their mercy with no recourse except grievance procedures, which may work but take forever. By the time you get through those, either your contract has run out and you don't care any more, or it's too far gone for you.

The next item is our pay. I know many people have raised the issue of pay, but I'd just like to touch on that for professionals. A good dental officer was here and explained that they get their pay rate based on a dental scale. For me, as an aerospace engineer, along with the rest of the engineering trade or the rest of the general service officers, we're all lumped into one category. There is no specialty pay for us.

I addressed this with my professional association. I happen to belong to the Alberta professional engineers association, even though I work in Quebec. I'm probably in violation for working for the wages I do. In our professional accreditation, there's a caveat that says you will not undersell yourself or basically prostitute yourself to the masses. You will go with the published rates. So when I get my yearly pay scale from them that says what I should be making, it's kind of an embarrassment to show my wife that I'm about $ 20,000 less than what they predict I should be making. Hopefully they don't take me to court one day and ask for it back.

The next point is the pay freeze. This is something I never saw brought up. We had six years of pay freeze, and everybody is well familiar with that. They've all been affected by that. But in the middle of the pay freeze, there was a two-year freeze on incentives, and it's something I haven't really seen addressed very well.

This two-year incentive freeze affected many people in different ways. In one of my submissions I put in, I tried to highlight for different people how they lost. This could all be in one section. So in one unit, different people tended to be affected very differently by this. I don't know if this is something Treasury Board considered when they did this to people. I gather it would affect the civil servants in a similar manner.

If you were in any one of the rank structures—private through to colonel or at least to lieutenant-colonel—served your full number of years, perhaps four years in your rank, and reached your top incentive, the two years of pay incentive freeze did nothing. It didn't cost you any money at all. You didn't lose one penny for that. So that guy went away happy. He had the pay freeze for six years like us but didn't lose anything.

If you were a corporal basic and had just started out, two years of freezes would have cost you about $ 1,800. In reality, if you progressed that through the next four years it would take to catch up your pay to where it should have been, you would have lost about $ 5,000 or $ 5,500. That's an approximate number.

• 2015

If a captain GSO happened to be at basic rate, then in two years he lost about $ 4,800. But by the time you progress that through his whole career, he actually lost about $ 28,000.

If you look at, for instance, a major pilot, he lost a couple of thousand dollars, and the career loss would be about $ 10,000.

It's not that anybody minded doing something for the national debt, but it doesn't appear that everybody did the same. Everybody was afflicted with the six years of no raise, but some people lost incentives and other people sat back and didn't lose them, so it didn't seem to be very equitable in the long run. I have to wonder if anybody really put any thought into how it would affect different members, and that doesn't even translate into how this affects people's pensions for the next 30 years, when they actually take a pension that's based on these lower numbers.

My last point—actually, the gentleman before me alluded to some of this—is on loss of benefits that we used to have, things like sports, things like days off. We used to have shore leave and things like that. Trips were sponsored by the military.

What is happening, we seem to find, is that more and more in the restructuring we're embracing all of these business practices, and in business we're saying, well, we can't afford to let a guy go home early this afternoon because he worked extra hours last night. It's too bad, we can't afford that. Or we can't afford a sports facility, or a pool for your kids, or to subsidize a sports activity, or things like this. So they're cutting those kinds of things out.

We're reducing the costs of DND. That's fine, but what's happening is that the good parts of business are not being adopted. So the parts of business that benefit the Department of National Defence, or perhaps the government in general, are being adopted into the civil service and into the military, which takes away from the benefits that the members used to have, in many cases.

That helps the government out. It reduces the bottom line. But what doesn't help out the members who are trapped in this is that the good things of a business aren't coming back, like the fact that they've been getting pay raises, or the fact that if you don't like your job you can leave, or the fact that, well, we did really well this year, Johnny, so here's a $ 3,000 bonus, or things like that.

It's give and take, and it seems to a lot of us that we've given a lot, but then the government is taking the profits on it and we've ended up carrying the load of three or four people instead of one in a section. You used to do your own job. Now you have to look out for the other guys we cut. There are no benefits to that.

Other than that, I'll close up and say I've done 20 years and it was fun. I've had a lot of good times. I'm here tonight complaining about a few of the bad times, but if anybody has any good questions, I'll answer those too.

The Chairman: What about bad questions?

Capt Dan Haines: I'll answer bad questions too, sir.

The Chairman: Do you work in Mirabel?

Capt Dan Haines: Yes, I do, sir.

The Chairman: The researcher was just telling me that they have received your submission.

Capt Dan Haines: That's good.

The Chairman: In regard to obligatory service, have you heard of any of your colleagues who were able to leave?

Capt Dan Haines: Oh yes, sir. They were leaving in droves. Quite a few people have been leaving in the last few years. In fact, we were paying them to go away. We let out a whole bunch of people on the FRP plans. We paid them money to go away because we didn't want them. We decided, for whatever reason, we had too many, which we probably did.

In fact, in my own circumstance—I didn't really come to complain about my own situation; I'll fight that battle when I have to—I put my release in, in November last year, to leave this October. I gave them 11 months' notice to say I actually owe three months after that, but I would prefer to leave in October and pay the remainder out. About three days before I put mine in, another member in my section put one in, and he left a month later. I'm still fighting my case as to whether I will have permission to leave or not. We lost quite a few people that way.

In my mind, I can expound a bit on what was said there last week, but there's no company in Canada, including the federal government, that can deny their people leaving. If a member wants to give two weeks' notice and leave, fine. If they decide they can get more pay somewhere else or they don't like this job any more or whatever, fine, they can go. Right now, it seems to be only DND that can say no, you can't go.

In any other company, if you want to move me to Calgary or pay for some training in the company, the deal usually is that you sign a promissory note to serve a year's term or something like that, but they do not have the option to say, sorry, but we won't accept your quitting and paying back the money; you have to stay. That's indentured servitude, which we don't allow any company to do.

• 2020

I'll turn it back to you, sir.

The Chairman: Okay. I guess you've made your presentation quite clear. There don't seem to be any questions from the panel. Anyway, I just wanted to thank you very much.

Capt Dan Haines: All right. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: We did receive your brief, and the researchers have it. I just wanted to mention that to you.

Corporal Katie Cyrène.

[Translation]

Corporal Katie Cyrène (Individual Presentation): This evening, I would like to speak about military couples.

In 1997, my husband was posted to Valcartier. He was here in Ottawa for barely three years. They decided to transfer him because his trade was amalgamated. Because he was in the army doing field training, it was decided to post him to trade 227 army. Since he was a francophone, he was transferred to Valcartier, and an air force corporal replaced him in Ottawa. They said they needed a 226 air force. Why? I do not know. Both men were recruited at the same time, took all their courses together and received the same training. It was just a question of uniform.

I informed my supervisors that I had not been transferred there. I have been in Ottawa for seven years now. Less than one week later, I was told that, for budget reasons, I could not be transferred to Valcartier. I was told that I would be on restriction and that, unless I was sent to a hotel, my husband would have to live in quarters. We wanted my husband to take the furniture and rent an apartment. We thought that, by going for this option, we could influence the decision of the career manager. As far as I can judge, it has not worked. I will soon have been here for a year.

My file was then passed up the line and ended up in the hands of the career manager. The second response I had was that there was no vacant administration clerk position in Valcartier. But it is quite a large base, and I had trouble believing that. I know many corporals in situations similar to mine: their spouse is here in Ottawa, and they are on restriction in Valcartier. I was told it was because there were no vacant positions. That took care of this year.

Again in March I asked to be posted to Valcartier. For budget reasons, I still have not been transferred. Since my husband has already been transferred to Valcartier, I am not taking anything from the career manager's budget. I am entitled to only half a month's pay and the cost of travel to Valcartier. I said that, if it was a question of budget, the armed forces could keep their half month's pay and transportation. They seem to prefer billing the armed forces $ 18,000 so that I can stay in a hotel. I will soon be starting my second year. I am told it is a question of budget. Where is the logic?

I spoke to corporals and sergeants who suggested that I exchange positions with a corporal in Valcartier. The career managers told me that that was not possible because it was too complicated. It would be a way of saving money, however, and making two couples happy.

• 2025

Since my husband is a specialist and makes more money than I do, and since we will soon be looking at the possibility of a second, and perhaps even a third, year apart, I decided to ask for my release in August. When it came time to hand in my papers to my supervisors, the one responsible for all corporals asked me why I was taking this step. He was not even aware of my situation, although he has all our files. "Why are you doing this?" he asked. Perhaps it is a lack of communication. I think there is a serious communication problem in the forces. My papers went through all the levels of supervisor and when I got to the last one, I was told: "If you reconsider your request for release, we can sort this out and give you a transfer to Valcartier. How about it?"

What do things have to get to this point? Do we have to threaten our supervisors or career managers with release requests in order to get a transfer and be together? In any event, that was the last straw. I have always been in Ottawa and that is all I have seen. I decided to put in for release and not to change my mind. I want to try something else. I hope things will be better in civilian life.

I am speaking particularly for other military couples that will go through this; it has happened before and it will happen again. Most of the time, it is the woman who has to leave. I do not know how the forces can say they are trying to hire as many women as possible when this is how they behave.

I was told that my first mistake was marrying another member of the forces. I do not know how that strikes people, but it does not augur well for other women. A person does not decide whom they are going to fall in love with. Unfortunately, I love a member of the forces and I must pay the consequences.

Finally, I would like to talk about the amalgamation of my husband's trade. Last year, it was decided to amalgamate three trades. The people affected were simply notified. Depending on the colour of their uniform or what they did in the past, they were told: "You are in the army category. You will therefore go into field training on an army base and stay there for the rest of your career".

Even though it is not fair, if I had decided to follow my husband, I would have been forced, as a human resources clerk, to remain on an army base permanently.

Thank you for your attention.

The Chairman: Mrs. Venne, you have a question?

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: I would like to say that I have the impression, from having heard testimony that differs slightly from yours but that is often similar, that there is a glaring lack of information and communication in the armed forces. You do not know what is happening to you, nor do you know why. I wonder who is supposed to keep you informed. Is it the career manager's job to tell you what is happening and why? Tomorrow, as you know, we will be meeting with them and we will certainly ask them if they are the ones who should be informing you and why they are not doing a better job of it.

You have also told us how it has affected you as a wife. You are finding it very difficult and that is understandable, because there is no doubt that you have been discriminated against. Right now, the forces have launched Operation Minerva in order to recruit women. Your testimony will certainly not encourage them to enlist.

I think that, in your very particular case, you should perhaps think twice about applying for release. Perhaps you should just give it a bit more thought, because I do not think it is too late for you to continue your career. In any case, I would urge you to give it more thought, because you made up your mind in very emotional circumstances. Perhaps you might consider talking with a career officer, who will be available and more receptive after our visit tomorrow. I hope so, anyway.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Donna McCarthy.

• 2030

[English]

Ms. Donna McCarthy (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I've had the opportunity to hear segments of most of the hearings across Canada on the subject of issues affecting quality of life in the Canadian Armed Forces. As the wife of an air force member for the past 20 years, I was easily able to empathize with many of the presenters and was moved to tears by a few, both spouses and members.

As adults, we have chosen to be affiliated with the military. I married knowing that I was facing a life of moves and short- and long-term separations from my husband, so I don't feel entitled to complain about some of these aspects of military life. However, it would be sensible and possible to change or implement some policies that could ease or prevent some of the daily difficulties and frustrations we have had to deal with.

My point is that some problems encountered by military families and single personnel are the result of having to deal with just plain nasty people and people who are enjoying the control they have, but they can be found in any organization.

The most difficult situation my family has had to face in the military is a posting out of province for which my husband received his posting message on July 30. The problems resulting from this included trying to sell our home well past posting season, finding accommodation in the new location before the beginning of school, and enrolling our high school-aged children in appropriate programs to meet their needs. Another option, to separate the family for the expected three years of my husband's posting, was considered only briefly.

For families with school-aged children, posting messages should be sent before a specified date.

A second suggestion I would like to make is that provision be made for military members to acquire provincial health cards, like every other member of Canadian society. They're as entitled as the rest of us to privacy regarding medical concerns not affecting their jobs and to choice of medical specialists and family doctors.

Another issue in regard to medical services in reference to families is that every interprovincial move entails a three-month wait for the province's medical plan to come into effect. In some provinces medical services accept the valid health card from the previous province of residence and bill that province for the service or treatment. Others, or at least one that I had personal experience with, asked for payment before receiving treatment.

I propose that this three-month wait be eliminated for military families.

A third issue is the lack of bilingual bonus granted members placed in a position that requires communication in both languages. I don't understand why other government department employees as well as the RCMP receive this incentive while military members do not.

As a spouse and not a member, I don't know if I should really talk about such policies and proposals as the current proposed pilot retention bonus, but I want to speak on it as a taxpayer.

I find it disturbing, as a taxpayer, that many of the pilots who will qualify for this financial incentive to commit to a period of service are members who re-entered our military after accepting buyouts of tens of thousands of dollars through the force reduction plan offered four or more years ago. Could it be that some of the re-entrants would be entitled to apply for the incentive while members who joined at the same time would not, as they loyally served 23 years or more continuously since the date of enlistment? I've been told 23 years is the maximum time served—the cutoff for being eligible to apply for this bonus.

I hope some of these details will be considered if and when this pilot retention incentive is finally offered.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Donna McCarthy: Thank you.

The last witness this evening is Major Brian Laughton.

• 2035

Major Brian Laughton (Individual Presentation): Before I speak, I'd like to take the opportunity to say that I'm extremely pleased with this opportunity that you've offered to me and to the rest of my colleagues, both here and at other locations across the country.

I should introduce myself. I'm Major Laughton. I'm a career manager. I've been in the army for almost 25 years now, and after 23 years of learning my craft, I was given the rare privilege and honour to be the manager of careers for the engineer officers in the army below the rank of lieutenant-colonel. I think that's a tremendous honour. I've always thought that being a career manager was one of the pinnacles for a major in the Canadian army, and I was granted that opportunity.

I'm sorry to say that I'm one of the ones you won't be seeing tomorrow. What has taken me 23 years to learn how to do, you're going to try to learn about in a hour and three-quarters tomorrow, I think it is, but I won't be one of the ones you'll see.

The subject I'd like to address tonight is to just make a comment on the severe bloodletting that is going on in my officer corps, the engineers officers. This is to say that we have an extremely high attrition rate. In actual fact, the MOC, which engineers officers for the army engineers, has a higher vacancy rate than that of pilots; however, there is no engineer incentive program being planned for retention, unfortunately.

However, I think I should predicate my remarks by observing a change that I've seen in the ethos of our officers in my limited 25 years of experience. I'm intrinsically motivated. I get the satisfaction from knowing myself that I've done my job to the best of my abilities, and hopefully, through my career, I've demonstrated that the best of my abilities are satisfactory.

I know that many of my peers of my generation are also intrinsically motivated. They would have to be, in actual fact, because if it were a matter of pay, that would not be a motivator. In actual fact, throughout my career, pay has never been a motivating factor.

In fact, pay, or the lack thereof, can be a disincentive. We certainly heard about that. For me personally, pay has never been it. I like the joy of being able to serve the country.

I must present the fact that I'm the ninth generation—this is continuous—in my family to be serving Canada, so it's a bit of a family heritage. As I said, I take it as a great honour to be able to serve my country. All I ask is to be able to serve it to the best of my ability.

However, our army is a totally volunteer army. Our Canadian Forces are totally volunteer forces. Having served with the majority of our allies, and some that we didn't use to call allies, I must observe the fact that our army—I can only really speak of the army because I haven't experienced the other environments to the same degree—is one of the best, if not the best, in terms of individual training and professionalism at all rank levels. I think that is why our army and the Canadian Forces at large are sought after whenever there is something happening.

I was serving out of country, commanding a British squadron preparing to go to Bosnia, when some events occurred in Africa. We never heard of any of the events in Africa other than the fact that the Canadian army was doing an extremely professional job there.

When I returned home to Ottawa—I had left from Ottawa to serve with the British army—and started playing hockey again with the friends with whom I had played before I went to England, I was attacked personally in the dressing room for being an animal. This was done by individuals I thought had been my friends, and it was because of how the Canadian army was being identified in the press.

It certainly hurt. I had to ask them if they really thought I was this individual they were accusing me of being. However, I still play with the same group of people, and I suppose you have to live with some bad events in your life.

But as for that professional army we have, we train, we lead, and we expect to be able to go out and do the job at any place at any time, whether it's here in Canada in support of the civil authority or whether it's on foreign shores in support of some other operation. It can continue to function only if it has motivation. We speak of morale, but it has to be motivated, and the motivating function in the army is performed by the leadership element.

• 2040

What I've seen in the engineers and what I saw while I was serving in England was the fact that of the almost 2,000 engineers in the Canadian army, 1,800 of them were out of country at one point. If you look at young officers in the engineers, you will see that they all have multiple UN decorations on their breasts. The most decorated soldiers in the Canadian army are engineers/soldiers, because they have been doing it continuously. And it's great. I heard earlier today that this is one of the good things.

And it is a good thing for a young soldier or a young officer, but when I was a troop commander, I also observed that of all those senior NCOs I depended on to help me run my troop in our activities and who are now at the master warrant officer and chief warrant officer levels—by virtue of their skills and abilities, they have risen to those ranks—not one of them is still married. One of my best soldiers was a master corporal and got promoted to sergeant under my command. He spent five years in a row—out of six—out of the country.

That has an effect on military life. They continue to do it, and they will continue to do it to the best of their abilities, but they need to have an incentive. The incentive is not the one wherein any time the Canadian army is in the press—other than when we're seen locally, because it's very nice to help Canadians—it's not cast in the best light.

And goldarn it, the people we're doing our best for aren't up there defending us to the best of their abilities. We're doing our job to the best of our abilities and we're getting crapped on by a whole lot of people. We're not being defended by our ultimate leaders.

I think that is why my best young officers, as a career manager.... And it happened again today. I've had a release today. I've had a horrible number of releases this year. All of my officers are good officers in the engineer classification, I can say that, but when it's the best ones who are deciding to move on to different pastures.... I ask for a reason every time it happens, and they say it's because they're not certain that Canada's getting its best service out of their being in the army. That hurts.

When a brilliant young officer decides to leave because he doesn't think what he's doing is of sufficient benefit to Canada because he doesn't get credit for what he does and the army is not being treated well enough.... I heard earlier today how the air force can run language training for spouses and members both—out of its own budget. The army can't even buy boots for its soldiers, for crying out loud. And our language training has a horrendous waiting list. I know that. I'm a career manager. It is something that distresses me.

Even though there are these glorious opportunities for these individuals to have a good long career, I can understand why they are electing not to do that.

The money issue is more of a factor now. It certainly is. Canada is having an upgrowth in its economy, and every time we have an upgrowth in our economy, engineers leave in droves. It's not just my classification—certainly I heard an area officer speaking here earlier about it—but all the engineer classifications that are depleted tremendously at such a time.

However, if it was just money it would be a different thing. It's not just money. It's because they don't feel they can add value to Canada the way they thought they might when they first joined. I think that is something you should really hoist on board.

That's all I have to say now.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Major, how many engineers did you say we were losing a month?

Maj Brian Laughton: The standard attrition forecast for my classification in a year is relatively small. We're at about 360 in total, or we're supposed to be, anyway. You would lose 5 or 6 through normal attrition—those reaching 55 years of age—and about 7 or 8 through unforecast attrition. I have 22 already this year and today is only June 2. Last year I lost over 35.

Right now we have a situation.... And I'm certain that for those who remain the load is getting greater, although when you go to the regiments, the officers are happy and the regiments are doing their business. But we have a shortfall of one-sixth of what we require, so we're operating at only at one-fifth or one-sixth availability.

• 2045

As I say, I've had four in the last four days. Maybe it's a bad week.

The Chairman: Would any of those engineers be responsible for de-mining over in Bosnia, for instance?

Maj Brian Laughton: Exactly. I'm wrestling right now with having.... I know this is going to be announced soon enough, but we have some more operations coming on, yes. I have three in Cambodia right now. Most of them would give their eye-teeth to go in the operation, because we really do know it's providing value to the world—and to Canada, because of the flag we carry around our shoulders.

So, yes, I have three officers in Cambodia, I have a number in Bosnia right now, and we're going to be sending more to Bosnia. I understand we'll be going to other locations as well. I'm thinking about Mozambique and a few others. So de-mining is our business, one of our games.

This individual who was gone, that's what he was doing. He did de-mining for five years out of six. When he came home in the fifth year, the house was vacant. I can understand that. Why would a spouse want to live through that lifestyle? One, the guy could always be killed by the mine in Cambodia, and two, you're not a partner. You're not playing a role in that part of your life as well if you're away five years out of six.

One thing I do know is that for all these guys who are leaving, Canada does get a bonus, because when they go into something else in Canada they all will be leaders, whatever they choose to do, whether it's within the army or without. So it's not a total loss to Canada, but it does hurt us as officers to watch this attrition.

The Chairman: I'm finished, John. Do you have a question?

Mr. John Richardson: Yes.

Thank you very much, Major. I appreciated the overview and the description of the time offshore that combat engineers in Canada undertake. I haven't followed it carefully, but I've often wondered how they could suffer that stress of being away for so long. I wonder, since we are taking on this chore, with its rather mammoth proportions for the size of our forces, why we haven't bumped up the number of combat engineers by double and cut down the impossible posting situations they're faced with.

It's not a fair situation to put a soldier in that kind of risk—and the job they're doing is a high-risk job—and then get them back home. It's an unstable situation if there's a matrimonial situation. I wonder whether, at some stage, we should look at the kinds of trades we're bumping offshore.

I mean, every time something goes up in the UN, Foreign Affairs says, yes, we'll send someone. Well, I think I'd like to send some of them.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Mr. John Richardson: They're coming at National Defence as if there was a bottomless pot of money, and it's an awful strain. I would like to see us, at some time, if we wanted to get into that specialty area of de-mining, which Canada has taken on, bump the strength of the combat engineers up to a level where they can undertake the job with comfort, like the rest of the forces do.

Maj Brian Laughton: In straight response to that, we don't have large numbers doing the de-mining now. When you first have an operation and you want to protect your own, then you'll have a lot of your own people in for the clearance operation.

As de-mining is now, in Cambodia I have three officers plus a lieutenant colonel and a few other odds and sods in the team, plus a bunch of Austrians in the whole Cambodia mine action centre. But there are 2,500 Cambodians. What we do for them is to lead them...well, we don't lead them; they have their own leadership structure. We advise them and we teach them and we help them run it in a better fashion.

I think that's in essence what we'll be doing in Bosnia. We're already doing it a bit in Bosnia, but when we set up the formal team in Bosnia, we'll do that.

Now, DFAIT has asked us to provide officers to be seconded to DFAIT. That's great, except I'm already short 61 officers. We'll meet the requirement for DFAIT, because that's a big project, and we need the advice in there so that we make sure we do the right work, but de-mining operations do not put a horrendous load on our engineers, officers, and NCMs right now.

We have the branch chief foreign officer in the audience. He possibly could comment on the NCM business more comfortably. I have the chief warrant officer for the soldiers working for me now.

• 2050

We're having a horrendous attrition problem on the NCM side as well, and it's the senior NCOs. You can keep on sustaining that operational impetus for a period of time, but it's beginning to break now, and we're losing those good senior NCOs.

Mr. John Richardson: Well, we certainly hear you loud and clear, and I thank you very much for your appearance.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Thank you, Major, and thanks to everyone who came out tonight and voiced their opinion.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, you're winding things up, then, are you?

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. David Pratt: I was just going to say that this, I believe, is our last public hearing, Mr. Chair, and I think it would be a good idea to thank some of the people who have supported us since we began this process five months ago.

I'm thinking of the sound technicians who have travelled with us, the translators, the parliamentary liaison staff. They have done a tremendous job.

I suppose more than anything, I would like to thank the members of the Canadian Forces who have come out and provided this committee with information over the course of the last five months. We've heard some intensely personal stories, and it takes a lot of courage to get up to the microphone and talk about your own personal life and the problems you're having. I think it takes a lot of strength as well.

What we've seen, speaking from my own standpoint, is a lot of very strong, talented people in the Canadian Forces. Having spoken to members of the committee, I think we're all extremely proud of the work the Canadian Forces does, is doing, and will do, and we certainly hope our report is going to make a difference.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: I think David has said it all, and said it very well.

Merci beaucoup, David.

This meeting is adjourned.