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

• 1412

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you all this afternoon to our town hall meeting here in Ottawa. As you're aware, we are visiting different bases and seeking your input on how to improve the quality of life. We've gone through a number of bases and we are in the final stretch of this study. On behalf of the committee, we are extremely happy to be here this afternoon.

There are a couple of things I want to mention to you. I already have a list of six people who would like to come up to the microphones and make their presentations. If there's anybody else who is interested in coming up, I would ask you to go and register with Sharon. The only reason we want you to register is so I will have your name to call you up.

[Translation]

Sharon could also give earphones to anyone who wants them. I invite you to make your presentation in the language of your choice.

[English]

The way we usually proceed is we have a very short introduction by the members who are here. Then I will call the first witness, and then after his or her presentation is finished we have a very brief question and answer period. That's the way we usually do it. If everybody is agreeable to that, I will ask Judi to introduce herself.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): Thank you. I'm Judi Longfield. I'm the member of Parliament for the riding of Whitby—Ajax, which is just east of metropolitan Toronto. I was first elected in June 1997 and have been on this committee since that time, travelling across Canada and most recently to Bosnia.

[Translation]

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): My name is Hector Clouthier and I am the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

[English]

My name is Hec Clouthier. I'm a Liberal member of Parliament in the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke. In my riding I have CFB Petawawa.

• 1415

The Chairman: My name is Robert Bertrand. My riding is Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, and I chair the national defence committee. We usually have a few more members who come with us, but they could not be here because of prior engagements. I know the Reform have their convention in London starting today. That's why we're short on members.

We will start right away. I will ask the first person to come up and make his presentation. Master Corporal Dave Daneliuk.

Master Corporal Dave Daneliuk (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, members of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. My name is Master Corporal Dave Daneliuk and my military occupational trade is intelligence operator. Presently I am serving in my 16th year. I am posted to NDHQ Director General, Intelligence, J2, strategic and regional analysis.

What brings me here today is to ask the committee to consider the following recommendations: first, that the military be given the right to form a union; and, second, that an independent inspector general be appointed with the IG's office to be totally independent of the military. The reasons behind why I believe your committee should recommend either a union or an independent IG's office are shortly detailed.

When I joined the military, I joined for a career that offered excitement and challenge. I can honestly tell this committee today that I've had the opportunity to experience excitement, challenge, frustration, and hatred. I am here today to tell you my story, of how I've been treated by the military, by my superiors to whom I've been loyal my entire career. I'm here to tell you how we have a medical system that I believe just does not work, how I've brought this matter to their attention only to find they believe I am the one who's at fault, that I should just be thankful I have a job, and that I should just leave it alone.

I learned many years ago on my combat leaders' course that as a leader you're loyal to three groups of people in the following order: your superiors, your subordinates, and finally to your peers. I can tell you today that if the military's definition of loyalty had been followed, then I would not be here today. Everything I'm going to tell you today is the truth. I have the documentation to prove it.

In 1989, while I was attending brigade ski school—part of the annual training—I suffered an accident while skiing. Now that I'm telling the story today, ten years later, I am waiting for one or possibly two more operations next month. The reason I will be having further surgery, in my opinion, is because of an incompetent medical system. This incompetence has and will cause me more pain and suffering than I should have experienced and will have to experience in the future.

Here is a brief outline of what has taken place. In February of 1989 I had an accident, as I said, while skiing. I damaged two ligaments in my left knee. While we were at the ski hill, I was examined by a medical aide and a nurse. My left knee could be bent outwards on angle of almost 45 degrees. I was in shock, but was I taken to a hospital immediately following the accident? No. If I had been transported to a hospital, then the rest of the people in my unit who were skiing would have had to return home because there would have been no med-aid present.

When we returned to CFB Shilo, I was examined by the regimental medical officer, Dr. Saeed. Dr. Saeed told me it would be okay in three to four weeks. I stayed the night in the base hospital and the following day I was sent to Brandon hospital to be seen by an orthopedic specialist. The doctor examined my leg and informed me that it required immediate emergency surgery to repair my leg. This was well after 24 hours after my accident. Unfortunately for me at the time, I still had to wait several more hours for the surgery because before I departed the hospital at Shilo, they required that I eat, so I'd not be billed for a meal.

The injuries that I suffered in the accident were not taken seriously by Dr. Saeed. In my opinion, I should have been sent for immediate medical treatment. After several months went by, I received a second operation in Brandon because there were some minor problems in my knee. After the operation, the doctor recommended that I use a brace for any strenuous activity, and yes, I'll tell you now that the military did pay for it.

Again, following the second surgery I was experiencing problems with my knee. I was sent to the National Defence Medical Centre here in Ottawa and was examined by Lieutenant Colonel Smallman, an orthopedic specialist. He recommended that I receive a further operation. I went back to Shilo and informed the hospital of the outcome and waited for the operation. This specialist-recommended surgery took three years to occur. This is where my dilemma started.

• 1420

While waiting for the operation, my hamstring muscles started to regain strength to the point that the brace for my leg was now too small. I required it for strenuous activity. My physiotherapist recommended the brace for physiotherapy. I saw the makers of the brace, and they informed me that it could not be enlarged.

I returned and was seen by Dr. Saeed. I explained all this to him, and he told me that the military would not pay for another brace because I was waiting to receive a third operation by Lieutenant-Colonel Smallman in Ottawa. I'd like to point out that today, I still have not received a replacement brace for my leg.

While waiting for the third operation, Dr. Saeed proceeded with the paperwork to have my medical category lowered permanently to a G303. I was now unfit for my trade. I personally believe that all the facts were not presented to the Career Medical Review Board, particularly the fact that I was waiting for a third operation and what the outcome of that operation would be. I placed my trust in the medical system that everything was being done correctly. After all, Dr. Saeed is a doctor.

One day, while at work, my captain came to see me and told me that he'd just received a phone call from the base hospital. The hospital orderly room wanted to have me charged because I was not in Ottawa getting ready for major surgery the following day. Later, I was to find out that the sergeant at the hospital forgot to inform me about the surgery. I made repetitive attempts to find out when I would be going back. I was in pain, but all the hospital told me was to stop being a complainer. They said not to bother them or they would have me charged.

There is no mention in my files about the missing appointment at NDMC in the summer of 1990. Recently, however, while at NDMC, I found out exactly when the operation was scheduled. I found some missing paperwork. Eight years later, I was to find out that it was not one scheduled operation appointment that I was not told about, but two separate appointments for operations.

After my second operation, I was told that I was promoted to master bombardier. At the same meeting, I was also told that I could not be promoted because I was “CMRBed”.

The deferral message states that the promotion will be deferred if the medical category is upgraded to the minimum trade standard, or if I'm awarded retention without career restrictions by CMRB, promotion will be reactivated. As for the importance of this last promotion, I'll explain later.

The system failed me; I did not fail the system. I was facing many emotional problems with the way the military was treating me. I was placed in such a dilemma. My basic contract was coming up. My leg was not working properly. In fact, I did not sign my second basic engagement contract until two weeks after my first basic engagement contract had expired.

After I was mandatorily medically remustered, I was posted to CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia. There, I waited for the pending third operation. I found out that the operation was no longer scheduled.

I was having major problems with my knee. I went to the base hospital and was seen by Dr. Howe. I explained all the problems that were occurring with my knee. I told him about seeing the specialist at NDMC. His answer was he was the doctor and he did not know if it was warranted that I see another specialist.

I went to a physiotherapist who wrote that there was no strength in my leg and that I should wait for the pending operation before resuming physiotherapy. Captain Howe would not do anything for me, so I went to see the base surgeon, Lieutenant Commander Bourke. The base surgeon told me that since Captain Howe was looking after my knee, I would have to find out from him why I wasn't going to see an orthopedic surgeon. It was simply not his custom to interfere.

One day, I had an ear infection and went to the MIR. The medic examined my ear and then read through my medical file, noting what Dr. Howe had written. In my file, the doctor had written that I was to be referred to a specialist in Halifax. The medic wanted to know what the specialist had told me about my leg. I told him I did not know what was written in my file and I never had the appointment. I never knew about it. The medic then referred me to the new base surgeon, who read what was written in my file. He then told me to see him when I returned from a course outside the country.

This I did. When the doctor examined my knee, which at this point in time was almost totally dysfunctional, he referred me to Dr. Rathbone, an orthopedic surgeon at HMCS Stadacona. Major Rathbone, after examining my knee, recommended the same operation and procedure that Lieutenant Colonel Smallman recommended three years earlier.

• 1425

I had two separate surgeries in Halifax. On each occasion, I was not informed about the surgery date. Both times, I was at home, and I received calls from the hospital in Halifax asking why I was not there to be booked in. The hospital in CFB Greenwood called me at home. I explained to them that this was major surgery, that I would be unable to walk or work, and that I would be on medication. The hospital told me to drive myself 200 kilometres to Halifax, have the surgery, and drive myself home. I told them no way. Not only did I find this unacceptable, but it was like having the accident all over again.

This was a major alteration to my life and that of my family. At least I should have some leeway to arrange things before the operation, because I would not be able to do things for the next several months after the operation.

Finally, after phoning back to Halifax and telling them I could not make it there for the next day, the base hospital in CFB Greenwood phoned me to inform me that they had arranged for a staff car to take me to Halifax later than afternoon. I would not have to take the airport bus run at 2.30 a.m. on the same day as the surgery.

I could tell you a heck of a lot more about an incompetent medical system, but now at least you must know how I feel about our only medical system.

Now I have recovered from the fourth operation and I'm also waiting for my third engagement contract. This is where I know I have been royally shafted by incompetent people.

I was waiting to see Dr. Rathbone in Halifax. While I was in the hallway, there were a number of people. Two of them had just had the same reconstructive surgery to their knees that I had just undergone. We talked. I was to find out that they did not lose their careers, as they ended up with G202 medical categories. I went in to see the doctor. He explained everything to me about the surgery and how categories were awarded. He then recommended that I receive a G202 category. To make it simple, I should never have been medically remustered. I never should have been “Career Medical Review Boarded”.

As I mentioned earlier, my second basic engagement contract was near expiry. I was offered a new contract, signed by my commanding officer at 14 Wing Ops at CFB Greenwood. Here's the kicker. The base surgeon would not remove my temporary category, even though the specialist, Dr. Rathbone, recommended that I be given a G202 category. The temporary category by the base surgeon was for six months. I explained to the base surgeon that I needed the contract signed. My career manager was phoning almost once a week, wanting my new contract. I explained to Dr. MacGregor about how I was CMRBed, what I went through, and the G303. He told me to come back after the temporary category had expired. I had to wait until after the temporary category was removed before I could get an MO's signature.

Unfortunately for me, I put some trust in our administrative system. I gave the contract back to the orderly room sergeant, who was going to hold it for me. When my temporary category had expired, I booked an appointment with the base surgeon, Dr. MacGregor, who knew my entire story and what I had gone through.

I then found out two things. One was that when I went to retrieve the contract, it was now for five years, less service. Second, I received a phone call from the hospital informing me that Dr. MacGregor would not see me any more and that I was to book a re-engagement medical with another doctor.

What this lost contract will cost me is five years and three months, less service. That amounts to approximately $200,000 plus 10% of my pension.

At this point in time, after long thought, I put in a memorandum asking for an assisting officer to help with a redress of grievance. Unfortunately for me, the CO appointed my immediate officer. I never submitted this redress because my boss had no time to help me with it. Just what good is help from someone who has no time to help you write your PERs and who is your immediate officer?

Well, more time passed, and I'm now posted to Ottawa. One day, I was listening to the inspector general, Brigadier General Cox talking about people who had been treated badly by our medical system. I took my little file that I have and went to see the IG's assistant, Chief Warrant Officer MacCarthy. He read my story. I told him there was no hope here for me, but if my story could help another soldier in the future, then they should feel free to use my case. He asked me what I was looking for and I told him that all I wanted was my promotion from back in 1990 and the money to go with it. I figured this was the brigadier general's office and maybe I could get some help. After all, he is the army's inspector general.

• 1430

A little while later, I got called into Colonel Crandell's office. He's our branch adviser. He showed me what I had sent to the IG. Around this point in time, the Ottawa Citizen wrote a story about how the military treated its injured members. I told the branch adviser that I would not be telling my story to the newspapers. He then told me the Director General, Intelligence, Brigadier General Hague, would probably see me about it when he returned. I again thought I was going to get some help. I have never seen the Director General, Intelligence.

At a later date, I was called to the branch adviser's office. This time he had a memo from Major General Clay, the chief of health services. In the memo, Major General Clay admits there was wrongdoing. Major General Clay states:

The concerns raised in refs have been reviewed by my staff. While it is unclear as to exactly [what] may have happened in this case and why more timely treatment was not received, it is accepted that better care could, and should, have been provided.

Was she willing to help with my case and all the questions I raised? No. Not one person from the major general's staff questioned me or even contacted me. I was offered no better care. Now I knew what I had was a totally lost cause.

Was the IG's office willing to help me? No. Was my own director general willing to help me? No. Was my branch adviser willing to help me? No. You know there's no help for someone— you know you don't go for help when two majors general and your branch adviser simply don't want to help you. What you do is go along with the system and wait until you can get out.

What the treatment by the military has cost me is tremendous pain and suffering, the full use of my left leg, my mental health, my physical health. It has cost me hardship through my personal evaluation reports. There are many mentions about my bad left knee, meaning I have been unable to pass the required fitness test for a number of years. All of this was not my fault.

It has cost me money that should have been reimbursed; for example, making me find my own transportation to physiotherapy clinics in other towns. It has cost me promotions. It has cost me pension benefits. It has and will cost me financially over $200,000. It has cost me my trust in my superiors. In the end, it will cost me my name.

I've done nothing wrong. I just wanted to serve my country to the best of my ability. Now I'm at the end of my wits. I just want to get on with my life away from the military.

Now, after being here in Ottawa, I see that a general gets to work an extra year and earn the pension benefits, even after defrauding the government of $80,000. When I read in the newspaper of a retired general commenting about how much money an officer will lose in pay pension benefits because of a demotion in rank and a $10,000 fine for committing a crime, I simply would like to know what crime did I do to lose everything I've lost and will lose in the future? I had a simple accident at work.

I've recently participated in the study of the past treatment of injured personnel. I have seen no change.

In her memo, Major General Clay wrote, “Appropriate patient follow-up is being emphasized.” I can tell this board today that when I went for an examination by an orthopedic surgeon on May 14, the only x-rays of my knee were the ones that were taken recently and the x-ray I received during my visit with him.

There could be a simple answer for the missing x-rays. On June 23, 1993, on examining some of my x-rays, Dr. Tingly wrote:

Incidental note is made that two of the views from the previous examination have been removed and are no longer available for review.

That is why I ask for a union, or, even better, an independent IG's office, separate from the military. The reasons, in my case, are simple. At many steps along the way I have been treated wrongly, but in every one of those steps, none of my superiors have been or are accountable to anyone.

With a union, at least, I would have a voice outside the military. With an independent IG, separate from the military, I would not have to worry; what I tell his office would be kept private. I would not have to fear my superiors knowing what I have said. I would not have to fear talking here today.

Thank you.

• 1435

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Master Corporal. I have a couple of questions for you. How many more years before you retire?

MCpl Dave Daneliuk: That's up in the air right now. As I said, I'm going back in for another operation and I'll probably be CMRBed again. So I'm not sure at this point in time. I'm due to get out in 2002.

The Chairman: You also mentioned, if I understood you right, that you lost five years of pensionable earnings?

MCpl Dave Daneliuk: Yes, that's correct. I've given the documentation to your committee. I've also put in a bunch of letters I have received, and my PERs, to show you guys that I'm not a person who is out to do wrong or anything.

It was a contract. It was to the year 2008, and when I went back to get it, it was changed to five years and three months less service.

The Chairman: You also mentioned you were in favour of some sort of union. You mentioned it would help a person in the same instance as you when you've had medical problems. But would you see this union also negotiating salaries and benefits?

MCpl Dave Daneliuk: I would say definitely. A union would give the junior people in the military the opportunity to be able to talk to one another at different points in Canada and be able to have a collective agreement and voice the same opinion across the forces to negotiate whatever—pension benefits, salary, hours of work.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Master Corporal.

Ms. Cathie Milne.

Ms. Cathie Milne (Individual Presentation): Thank you. I'd like to introduce myself. My name is Cathie Milne and my husband is a member at NDHQ. I've done a presentation and here it is.

I understand why the divorce rate among military spouses is so high. It takes a special and unique individual to undertake the challenge of being a military spouse.

Once you become a military spouse, your life changes. You are categorized as a D, F, and E. That stands for dependant, furniture, and effects. Personally, I resent having the equal importance in value of my dining room furniture. In the eyes of the military, I am an extension of my husband. It is as though I'm his possession. I'm a commodity rather than a person, and that hurts.

In my case, it is even worse because I've kept my maiden name; therefore, it makes it more confusing for the administration. I'd like to expand on this by providing two illustrations.

The first one is the health form. On the health form is his name and where he's located. I am nowhere on the form. I am affectionately known as “member's spouse”. I find this a little disconcerting, because he's covered under the military health plan. In more cases than not, the reimbursement is for me. The cheques come in his name. That's far from endearing.

The second example I'd like to illustrate is my move to Ottawa. My husband was transferred here 10 months before I chose to join him. So, theoretically, the move and relocation was moving me here to Ottawa. Unfortunately, when I called the moving company to confirm the logistics in Toronto, they didn't know who I was. I finally received a phone call two days after the fact, and all the person could say was, the move was under his name; mine was nowhere to be found. It was as though I was inconsequential. Considering I was leaving my home of 15 years, this was very disconcerting.

• 1440

I find this categorization ironic, because the military prides itself on fostering morale and well-being among the ranks and officers. However, it seems to be alienating one of the most important things in a military member's life—his or her spouse. It takes a special person to accept this loss of identity. Ideally, I believe this should be changed so spouses do not feel like possessions.

As I stated, I am a military spouse. In some circles, that means I'm a professional volunteer. I've not always had that title. It has only been since I've moved to Ottawa, and in fact, only in the last year. I used to have a career, where I was able to support myself, living in downtown Toronto. I now can't say that. My situation has taken a 180-degree turn. I gave up my career to live with my husband. I decided that a long-distance marriage was not what I wanted.

I was under the impression that I would have little difficulty finding a job. Boy, was I mistaken. A permanent job does not exist in Ottawa. The Ottawa market is dependent on temporary or contract workers. This environment is foreign to me. I don't know if I'm asking for too much, a job that has stability, longevity, and security, like the one I once had, but as a military spouse I have learned that this is almost an impossible dream. At this time, I don't believe it's going to happen.

As a consequence, I've turned my talents and skills to volunteering. It is far from the ideal situation, but at least it enables me to interact with other people and feel worthy. To be frank, it gets me out of the house. The unfortunate thing with volunteering, at least for me, is that it's not enough. I miss having an income. I might not have made what my husband made, but I do notice the change in lifestyle since we have moved to Ottawa.

Personally, I would like a job bank created for military spouses. Theoretically, there should be a job for every spouse when a member is posted, or at least the opportunity of employment for spouses. I realize and accept that this might not be possible for political reasons, but it is a suggestion.

Another option would be a wage security program for spouses. If a spouse leaves his or her employment to be with a military member, the salary of that person would be guaranteed by the Department of National Defence for a fixed period of time to assist the individual during the period of transition.

My other major disappointment with DND is the apathy and lack of cohesion within Ottawa. I was under the impression that when I married a member of the military, I would be accepted and welcomed with open arms. I had heard stories of the great kinship and bonding that happens between military spouses. Again, I was wrong. In fact, today is the anniversary date of my moving to Ottawa, and to date, I have not been fully welcomed into the community. At this point, I believe it would be moot, but last year I could have truly benefited from a military welcome wagon. It would have been nice to have someone call, welcoming me to Ottawa and the military family.

This sounds petty, but that one phone call would have made me feel involved and appreciated, that one person making the effort to say, “Welcome to Ottawa, and is there anything I can do for you?” Instead, I was forced to deal with my relocation, unemployment, and the new environment by myself.

To say the least, this has done nothing but foster my alienation from the Department of National Defence. In fact, it illustrates the necessity that a military spouse be unique and special.

• 1445

I've been told by some people that this suggestion is not feasible or possible since Ottawa no longer has a base. To me, that's a cop-out. I believe this service is needed to foster morale amongst spouses. I don't think it's asking too much for someone to pick up the phone and welcome newcomers to Ottawa.

While my situation may not be bleak—things could always be worse—I know and realize that my situation is far from ideal. I have made the best of it, and I've learned some important lessons about myself and the military within the last year. One, only the strong survive. Two, change is good. Three, anything you believe in is worth fighting for. That's why I believe DND should implement my suggestions—a re-categorization for spouses; a job bank or wage security program; and a military welcome wagon.

I believe it was Nietzsche who once said that what does not kill you makes you stronger. Today I'm a firm believer in that philosophy.

In closing, I would like to say that I know my survival can be attributed only to my flexibility, determination, and attitude. I am a unique and special person. After all, I am a military spouse.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

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

I believe Mr. Pratt has a question for you.

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

Thank you for your presentation, Ms. Milne. Your comments with respect to being categorized as “dependant, furniture, and effects” is something we've heard at many of the bases across Canada. I think it's very easy to understand why military spouses can get very upset when they're put in the same category as the family toaster.

Ms. Cathie Milne: Or my dining room furniture.

Mr. David Pratt: The suggestion you made for a job bank is something we heard a couple of days ago from I think the assistant secretary to defence in the U.S., Carolyn Becraft. They have that in the United States, and it appears to be working very well.

The idea of the military welcome wagon is I think certainly a good one as well, but I'm interested in knowing if you received any support material. I know you didn't receive a phone call, but was there anything in the mail with regard to information in terms of the move? Was there anything to help you at all?

Ms. Cathie Milne: The only thing I did receive, approximately a month to six weeks after the fact, was a folder my husband brought home. Basically, all it had was: This is Ottawa. Here are the Parliament Buildings. Here is the aviation museum.

It also had in it a little pamphlet on the Military Family Resource Centre. I did go there, but unfortunately, I'm unique in that I don't have a family, and most of their services, because they have a limited budget, are geared toward families.

As a single family, they really couldn't offer me anything, and the services they did offer me, I already knew. I know how to write a resumé, I know how to network, I know how to job search. I can do that. I just need a job, and they couldn't do that for me.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

Ms. Cathie Milne: You're welcome. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Cathie, maybe I misinterpreted you in terms of this guaranteed transitional funding that you were speaking about. Could you expand on that?

Ms. Cathie Milne: That's another option I had. If a job bank can't be set up due to political reasons, I was thinking that if a spouse leaves his or her job voluntarily to be with a member of the military, I believe the military should do something to fund that person, because in fact you would be losing part of the household income. But I would like to be on record as stating that I don't necessarily think the member himself or herself should be given the additional income in that way. It would be more directed to the spouse or the person who has taken the “voluntary retirement” to be at home.

• 1450

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Have you given any thought to how long you would like this transitional funding to go on?

Ms. Cathie Milne: Theoretically and ideally, I would love it to last the duration of a posting, but that's unrealistic. I'm sure the logistics of it and the practicality of it could be negotiated. As a spouse, it would be ideal for three years, but six months to twelve months would be great too. I also realize it probably won't fly because the Canadian public would really get up in arms if they heard the military was subsidizing spouses for not working.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Cathie, I noticed you used words, in describing yourself, such as talents, skills, unique, and special. After listening to you I agree with you, and I think you are the type of person who wouldn't take no for an answer. So expanding on Mr. Pratt's suggestion with the military welcome wagon, which I believe would be a remarkably good idea, have you approached the NDHQ or anyone with regard to that? Perhaps there's a niche market for someone like you, because you seem to be a bubbly, effervescent person. Maybe you could be the person who has the genesis for the military welcome wagon.

Ms. Cathie Milne: I would love to do that, but have you tried dealing with the bureaucracy at NDHQ?

Mr. Hec Clouthier: I've dealt with a bit of political bureaucracy. I'm reading you loud and clear, but it would be a suggestion.

Ms. Cathie Milne: I am just one person and I cannot climb the mountain by myself. If somebody approached me to do it, I would gladly undertake the project, but I don't feel it is my responsibility to climb the mountain by myself. I didn't create it. I'm only here to make it easier for other people.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay, fine.

Ms. Cathie Milne: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Cathie. Are you living in a PMQ or are you living in the economy?

Ms. Cathie Milne: I live in Gloucester so I guess I'm living in the economy.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do you think it might have been easier and you might have felt more a part of the kinship if you had been in a PMQ?

Ms. Cathie Milne: To be honest, I'm not sure. I used to live in Toronto when my husband was stationed there, and there was no cohesion in Toronto either. But at least in Toronto I had my own network and support area and I didn't feel like a fish out of water. Here in Ottawa, I just felt like a fish out of water, slowly drowning.

Theoretically, I think I should have been welcomed by my husband's commander, but when I arrived he was on his way to his next posting, so he was not really concerned about my arrival. Therefore I just got tucked away.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Do you think your situation is typical or did you just get caught in the—?

Ms. Cathie Milne: No, I don't think I am typical. I've heard from other people who have moved to Ottawa, or spouses who have moved to Ottawa, and nobody has contacted them either. The only reason they've survived is just ironically by running into other military spouses, who have given them connections and networking ideas.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Cathie. You certainly have given us three excellent ideas that I know the committee will pursue. Thank you.

Ms. Cathie Milne: Before I go, I would like to add that I am available and my number is on record if you want to find me.

The Chairman: Cathie, I have just a few questions for you. I gather from what you were saying that you were working in Toronto.

Ms. Cathie Milne: Definitely.

The Chairman: Okay. When you moved to Ottawa, did you have any problems getting EI benefits?

Ms. Cathie Milne: No, I didn't. But before I moved and left my position in Toronto, I investigated it fully. But I don't believe EI is the solution.

The Chairman: Okay. When you moved, did you have any problems with the movers?

Ms. Cathie Milne: In what sense?

• 1455

The Chairman: We've heard a lot of horror stories about the movers damaging the furniture and that it was up to the person to contact the insurer and do all of the leg work. Did you have to go through any of that?

Ms. Cathie Milne: To be honest, I didn't. My move was uneventful in the physical relocation. It was more traumatic just because I was leaving my home of 15 years and starting fresh. But the movers were wonderful. They did their job quite adequately.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Cathie Milne: Thank you and have a good afternoon.

The Chairman: Chief Warrant Officer Antonin Fortier.

[Translation]

Chief Warrant Officer Antonin Fortier (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Antonin Fortier and I am a Chief Warrant Officer. My trade number is 719, health services manager.

Today, I am going to tell you what is happening to me and could happen to anyone. This may have happened in the past and may happen in the future.

In January 1998, my career coordinator spoke to me about a possible transfer to CFB Borden, in Ontario. The Chief Warrant Officer of the school where I was supposed to go had asked to be discharged and my career manager had spoken to the Chief Warrant Officer of the branch, telling him I was the ideal candidate to go to Borden, to which I had no objection. But given that it would have been my third transfer in 24 months, I decided to speak with my wife and take my discharge instead of going to Borden.

I wanted to save the department money. As a result, my pension fund and my departure allowance have been affected. A transfer typically costs the service $25,000. If I had accepted the transfer without saying anything, it might have cost the Canadian Armed Forces $50,000 to $60,000. Given that I had decided with my wife not to go to Borden, I telephoned my career coordinator to let him know I intended to ask for a discharge.

If you have asked for a discharge after receiving transfer orders, this is considered a posting evasion. You can be discharged from the Canadian Armed Forces on the date of your transfer. I told my career manager that if he had to transfer me to Borden, he should do it on an honest date, about August 15. I told him I would ask for a discharge then and he could cancel my transfer and select another candidate to replace me, which would have saved money. This saves transfer costs, months of salary, etc.

At the end of March, since he was leaving on vacation, he telephoned me and said "Tony, you have to make a decision. You are going to be transferred to Borden on May 1." That gave me about 30 days of notice rather than the three or four months notice I would have had if I had been transferred on August 15. I then began preparing my discharge forms and so on to explain that I was requesting a discharge. He told me "Tony, I am beginning to have problems in my chain of command. You are going to be discharged on May 1." I don't know if you know it, but things were getting tense. I began to smoke. I was not smoking cigarettes, but smoke was coming out of my ears. I began to rummage through my books. Career coordinators have directives to follow and some of them do not do it. When I speak of my career coordinator, it may not be my immediate superior who is not following directives but the chain of command.

To save the service money, I had my ideal discharge date calculated to avoid losing part of my departure allowance or my pension fund.

• 1500

According to initial calculations by a member of headquarters, a normal date would have been about July 6, which would have given me 29 years of service, entitling me to a pension. But given that I had asked to be discharged on August 15 or September 15, I carried out more in-depth calculations and it was recommended that I ask for my discharge on September 15 rather than August 15 so I could reach a full 29 years of service, entitling me to a pension. But since I had asked for my discharge after receiving my transfer orders, I was told I would be discharged on August 4, which would mean a loss of about $2000 in my departure allowance and a few crumbs of the pension to which I would have been entitled with a full 29 years of service. But when you add up the few crumbs you are losing, you are losing a large amount of money. By trying to save the service money, I got taken in terms of both my pension fund and my departure allowance. To avoid losing anything, I should have kept my mouth shut, gone to Borden and asked for my discharge once I was there. I would have been paid a half-month's salary and it would have involved the expense of one move, appointing someone else to go there and moving that person too. I could have sold my house here, bought another in Borden, sold it and bought another here. But because I was honest, I will be discharged on August 4, I'll lose a small portion of my pension and some other money as well. And yet I saved the Canadian Armed Forces $50,000.

What is happening to me now could very probably happen to others and probably will happen to others in the future. I am not asking for miracles. I only asked to be discharged on September 15 instead of August 15 and now I will be discharged August 4.

The Chairman: Mr. Fortier, did you mention all those reasons to your career manager?

CWO Antonin Fortier: When I decided to take my discharge, I put everything on paper. I faxed my career coordinator the papers I sent to the discharge section at the Ottawa base. They looked at my papers and I said exactly why I was asking to be discharged. First, I currently require health care and dental treatments that will end about September 15. I told them these treatments would end about September 15 and I could then leave the Canadian Armed Forces. I was not asking for the moon. I was asking that my discharge be delayed a month. This was refused.

The Chairman: In your opinion, if I have understood correctly, your local career manager is not at fault. The decision was made higher up.

CWO Antonin Fortier: In the Canadian Armed Forces, there are people who make recommendations and there are people who approve them. I am almost certain that it was not the person who made the recommendation who changed the date.

The Chairman: We are taking note of it, Mr. Fortier. Thank you very much.

CWO Antonin Fortier: Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Ms. Barbara Weaver.

Ms. Barbara Weaver (Individual Presentation): I'd like to start by thanking the committee very much for giving me a chance to speak this afternoon.

Sitting here reminds me of when we were posted temporarily to Pennsylvania. There's a story they like to tell in Pennsylvania concerning the Jonestown flood. The story is about a fellow who was born and bred in a small town in Pennsylvania. He lives there, he grew up there, he married, started a family, and led a fairly uneventful life until the Jonestown flood. His house was swept away in the flood and he was rescued in the nick of time, clinging to the roof of the house as it was swept down the river. This was his claim to fame.

The story goes that in the fullness of time he lived a long life, died, and went to heaven. He was met at the gates by Saint Peter, who welcomed him to heaven and gave him the usual briefing. He told him that every evening the newest members in heaven were asked to speak to the other members of heaven on the one significant point of their whole life. The story goes that this man said, “I've led a pretty quiet life. I'm a small-town boy, but, you know, I did survive the Jonestown flood, I could talk about that.” Saint Peter scratched his head and said, “I guess that would be okay, but you have to remember that Noah will be in the audience.”

• 1505

As I have watched you progress across Canada and have listened to some of the presentations here today, I feel there have been Noahs in the audience. Before I start I would just like to pay tribute to them, before I talk about my own little flood, and tell them my heart and my prayers are with them and I hope the committee will be able to do something to help them.

Sixteen years ago I lived above the Arctic Circle, had a career, and made $50,000 a year. Then I met and fell in love with an air force officer. At the time of my marriage I had the choice of marrying and following him to his next posting or accepting a promotion and an increase in salary. I followed my heart, an act which to date I would conservatively estimate has cost me in excess of $800,000 in lost wages. This is because I was never able to pursue my career again. The constant moves, the postings to small towns in poor provinces where there was no work, made it impossible to further my career.

Today, after 16 years, I find myself and my children paying a very high price for my decision to become a military wife. Both my children have special needs that require extra support and intervention. With the government cutbacks, there are long waiting lists to access the available services. It seems that each time we move to a new province—and every move has been to a different province—we find ourselves back on a year-long waiting list. Neither child is getting continuity of care. We moved to Ottawa in July 1997 and my son is still on the waiting list to be seen at CHEO.

I use the services of a psychologist, which is covered under GSMIP up to $1,000, but at $150 an hour once a week, the money was used up in a matter of weeks. My daughter is receiving speech therapy, occupational therapy, and extra help at school, but recent severe cuts in the school board's budget mean this help quite probably will not be available in the future. If I paid privately for speech therapy, it would cost $160 an hour, twice a week. Special tutoring can cost anywhere from $25 to $35 an hour. I'm unable to find work, and we cannot afford all these things on my husband's salary.

The frequent moves have also affected my children's education. My son, entering grade 9 in the fall, will be attending his seventh new school. My six-year-old daughter has already been in three different schools. With every school change, I must begin again to educate school personnel about my children's needs and begin the battle to get them the special help they need. I know the constant moves have worsened my son's problems to the point where a specialized private school appears to be the only option for him. This is an impossibility on a single wage.

Very early on in my marriage someone told me that if the military wanted my husband to have a wife and children, they would have issued him one. This was perhaps a joke, but after 16 years it seems to be painfully true. I think it will be harder and harder to attract bright young men to the armed forces, because bright young men want bright young wives and they will not find the military life to their liking.

A military family is moved for the convenience of the military, with no thoughts and concerns for the wife's career or the children's needs. How many times have I moved on my own because he was off on a course, or moved right across the country only to be on my own with small children for weeks at a time because he was away on military business? One memorable year I was on my own for a whole year with two small children. During that time I had two biopsies for cancer. I came home right after having the growth cut out of my jaw, as there was no family nearby to look after the children while I recuperated.

The military does make a stab at moving over that transition by providing a sponsor and an information package for the new base. During the first military move of my marriage, my husband, knowing I was worried about going to a new province, enthusiastically described the information package that would arrive and the appointed sponsor who would answer any of our questions. Even though it's been about thirteen years, I still remember the day the information arrived. I tore it open to find a letter written over the signature of the base commander. It read: “Dear—, Welcome to CFB Winnipeg. Your sponsor is—”

• 1510

It brought home the point that I wasn't even important enough to warrant checking to see if the blanks had been filled in. I also hyphenated my last name, and because I am a dependant the military blithely ignores me, calling me only by my husband's name.

We are further in debt because of buying and selling a house every three or four years, the alternatives being renting a PMQ—and I know you've heard all about them. Once we bought at the top of the market, only to sell at the bottom. We lost $15,000. Currently the armed forces has a buy-back program, which has been a big help as it means the wife no longer has to stay behind to try to sell the house. However, what would really help would be to have a buy-back at the price you paid for the house.

While we're on the subject of moving, I must mention that a military wife does a great deal of unpaid work for the armed forces. One example is damages incurred during the move. On one memorable move, we sustained $5,000 in damages to our belongings. Of course, this was covered by insurance. But what you don't realize until you go through it is how time-consuming it is to get these items replaced or repaired. With this much damage, someone has to be home full-time, as agents and repairmen do not come after hours or on weekends. Had my husband taken time off work to see to these repairs, he would have spent many hours lost to the military.

While the military saved money in that case, I'm at a loss to understand some of their other financial manoeuvres. Something that really puzzles me is their policy on pilots. Not too long ago, the armed forces said that there were too many pilots and an attractive buy-out package was arranged to reduce their numbers. Now I read in the newspaper that there's a dangerous shortage of pilots. Another attractive incentive program is in place to try to keep them. This seems to me to be disorganized and poorly thought out on the part of the leadership. It is especially depressing, given the crisis of leadership that the armed forces has recently experienced.

It does not help morale to read in the papers that General Roy received over $60,000 to maintain a second residence that he wasn't entitled to. His only discipline was to retire on a full pension. While we were in B.C., a hospital administrator embezzled a similar amount and he received a jail sentence. In another case, Colonel Vanier claimed travel expenses he wasn't entitled to, lied about it, disappeared without leave for 12 days, and received only a reduction of one rank.

The media are having a field day with information like this and some of the other fiascos, like the Somalia affair. They never seem to miss a chance to make the military look bad. If someone who used to work for Zellers or GE were arrested on suspicion of murder, the media would never mention where they used to work. But if they used to be in the military, this is widely reported and the opportunity is taken to air once again portions of those disgusting tapes of the airborne in Somalia.

When I first married, I was fascinated to observe the good-natured ribbing and rivalry that existed between the different crews in the military. One of my favourites took place during a party where there was a crew from an Aurora and one from a Sea King. The jokes continued throughout the evening until the Aurora pilot delivered what I considered the winning shot. He looked at the Sea King crew and said, “At least when I come back to land, my runway is exactly where I left it.”

This to me illustrates the problem with our military today. There is no anchor, no firm airstrip, on which to operate a stable organization. I feel that the country lacks pride and concern for their military. This has caused a lack of commitment and voter support for defence spending. This in turn has undermined the leadership, the morale, and the direction of the armed forces.

To maintain a fine military, there must be adequate money to do the job and to do it well. From this will evolve strong, admirable, capable leaders backed up by proud troops with good morale. I'm very proud of my country. I'm proud of my husband and the others who serve with him, ready if necessary to put their lives at risk. The many loyal military members and their families deserve better support from the Department of National Defence, the government, and the media.

Thank you.

• 1515

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation. I have just one quick question. Are you receiving help for your kids now?

Ms. Barbara Weaver: I'm not receiving any help for my son. The GSMIP has run out and he's still on the waiting list for CHEO. For my daughter, I have been before the school board and presented and fought, and I understand her speech therapy and her special class are safe for one more year, but this is only because the school board had a reserve fund. It's very possible that next year this will be gone and she will be back floundering in a regular classroom.

The Chairman: Have you contacted the family resource centre to see if they—

Ms. Barbara Weaver: The family resource centre, sir, was the first place I phoned when I hit Ottawa, especially about my son, because I was very concerned about his problem. They said to me, “Oh yes, we used to have somebody here who knew doctors in the area who were familiar with that problem, but you know what? She was transferred. She must have taken the list with her.” I was back to phoning again. It took me until September to get him on the list at CHEO.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Barbara Weaver: Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Master Warrant Officer Donald Verrette.

Master Warrant Officer Donald Verrette (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, committee members. There are two things I would like to tell you.

I am a career coordinator. I am one of those people who make recommendations. I have certain small problems as a career manager. First, one is not a career manager by trade. A person is taken from a trade to become a career manager for a period of time.

For me and many other career managers, the main problem is not knowing who should go where. This is easy to determine when looking at a group of people. Our main problem comes especially with the junior ranks when we have to send someone to Toronto, to Esquimault, to high-risk locations, to places with a high cost of living when you know that person is going to declare bankruptcy. This is truly a major problem. In any case, for me, I have major moral concerns when it is time to select someone to send to these regions.

Outside the country, we have a salary equalization factor. This would certainly be a very effective tool in helping us compensate the people we must send to these locations. This tool could also be used to try to preserve trades that are in danger. This is not the case for mine but we heard earlier about pilots and other trades. A salary equalization factor would help preserve certain groups that are in jeopardy but not necessarily for life. That's one thing.

The second thing is that I am a career manager for the administrative and financial side of things. Naturally, I will soon return to a financial posting with my next transfer. I came from the costing services. I was extremely surprised by the amount of money passing through National Defence for what is called federal discretionary expenses. I feel sorry for people in the Defence Department who have choices to make. Almost 40% of the budget is directed outside of Defence. They have practically no choices in where to spend their money. To give you an idea of how things are, take a look at those in power, look at their ridings and ask for a copy of the report filed with National Defence, which, by chance, is called "Expenses by riding." This will tell you to what degree the department is political. This does not provide much help to those who handle the financial management of all that.

I am not sure that there is not enough money. The problem is that we cannot choose where to put our money.

Thank you very much Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: From what I understand, when you transfer someone to Toronto or Esquimault, the so-called posting allowances—

MWO Donald Verrette: That does not come into play very much sir. It is as is except for the small difference between us and the RCMP, about which you have already heard.

• 1520

What I mean to say is that there are soldiers who say "I cannot go to Toronto." In Toronto, the salary does not have the same value as in Smalltown, Alberta. There are people who will almost make their families suffer by selecting places I can hardly send anyone just because it is less expensive for them. That is my big problem.

Naturally I have reported this fact. The answer is that in the course of a career, a member should be transferred to various regions and in absolute terms, everyone should do about the same things and spend about the same amount. There is no logic to this. Who sets aside $50 a week until they are transferred to Toronto to be able to spend the money there?

The Chairman: If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that in addition to a posting allowance, there should be a salary increase.

MWO Donald Verrette: This would not be a permanent salary increase. The allowance would be adjusted to the cost of living since the cost of living varies by sector.

We had the PERI group, which was made up of people who looked after physical education. It does not exist anymore and was taken over by a civilian agency called PSP which recruited former members of the forces now in civilian life. They tried to keep the members.

I will give you approximate figures. A PERI was paid about $30,000 here in Ottawa and this was tried in Esquimault as well. They were not able to keep them. They had to increase their salary by $6000 to at least $36,000 to keep a PERI. Otherwise, they would not have been able to keep them in Esquimault since the cost of living was too high there.

The principle would be the same as sending people to different countries in Europe or to embassies. The difference between the value of the money there and here is calculated. That could vary by province.

The Chairman: One last question. What did you say regarding riding?

MWO Donald Verrette: What I want to say is that, if I am not mistaken, about 40% of the federal government's entire discretionary expenses, and not only those for Defence, pass through National Defence. These are discretionary expenses, those for which no special authorization is required.

By chance, when someone is in power, he or she spends a lot in his or her riding. When that changes, the spending shifts to another riding. It is obvious. That can make the difference between having something printed here in Ottawa or in Sherbrooke if the member for Sherbrooke happens to be in power. These are things that happen.

The Chairman: This is something I did not know.

MWO Donald Verrette: Yes. There is a publication that comes out of Defence's costing services. It is called "Expenses by riding." Given that, tell me that we are not political.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

MWO Donald Verrette: You're welcome sir.

[English]

The Chairman: Ray Learmouth.

Leading Seaman Ray Learmouth (Individual Presentation): I'm Leading Seaman Learmouth. I just wanted to bring up the point that here in Ottawa there are no rations in quarters available for single members.

When they closed the base at CFB Uplands, they also tore down the barracks, forcing everybody to live on the economy. This creates a financial burden on junior officers and junior NCMs when they're forced to live in apartments or houses. They are able to apply for a PMQ; however, they can be kicked out of there with only 30 days' notice. So there's really not much sense getting into a PMQ knowing you could be kicked out of there in the next month.

That's about it.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Major Mike Beaudette.

• 1525

Major Mike Beaudette (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon.

I'm sure by now you've heard countless stories of the short time between postings for members. The average is two to three years between postings. Members have up to a maximum of seven days to conduct a house-hunting trip to find new accommodation when they're posted.

I won't even start to get into the poor quality and shortage of PMQs. I know you're well aware of that.

As a result of that, of course, a lot of members see this as a bit of an encouragement to go out and find homes of their own, to become homeowners. In fact, maybe that's a positive incentive, because people are now becoming homeowners earlier in their careers. As a result, maybe that works so that later in their careers, when they retire, they've worked up to some suitable housing and they're not looking for a home for the first time after 20 years of service. That's fine.

Unfortunately, there's one very negative incentive to becoming a homeowner, which we stumbled upon a year ago. This is what is called an interest rate differential. Maybe you've heard of this. I'll just go through it very quickly. Obviously, when a member is posted and they have to break their contract with the lending institution, they are normally levied a three-month penalty, but of course with the fluctuating and lowering of interest rates over the last couple of years, lending institutions have levied instead an interest rate differential, which is usually considerably more money. Treasury Board, and as a result DND, does not recognize this as a penalty.

To me, it's not much of a reward either. We found out after the fact—in fact two weeks before Christmas—that we owed DND, through the claims system, $3,700, and we basically had one month to pay back that $3,700. Through some desperate measures on our part, we made an offer to pay it back over two months. They said that was unacceptable. So I then had to go out and get a CFPAF loan through the military for one year so I could pay this off over a one-year period. I was told I was lucky they were doing that for me.

I thought this was ludicrous so I approached some lawyers I worked with. They said they had heard countless stories and had seen numerous redresses on this issue. I approached members of the Chief of Defence Staff office, just because of the proximity of where I work, to ask how many of these redresses they'd actually seen. They literally said there was a stack this high and I'd be wasting my time to add to that stack because they've never ever heard of anybody succeeding in challenging the interest rate differential.

To add insult to injury, of course, you've probably heard that there are a lot of people losing a lot of money on their moves, buying high and selling low just by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. When you add an interest rate differential to that situation, it's the fatal blow to a lot of people forever owning a home. They will lose $12,000 to $15,000 in the sale and suddenly find out they owe another $4,000 to the lending institution, and they were never told they would have to be responsible for that when they signed the contract through DND.

Unfortunately, again, we suffered a $3,700 loss and basically were told it was our unfortunate circumstance, but Treasury Board doesn't recognize that.

The second issue—and I'll be very brief because I know you've heard countless stories about this—is the poor quality of movers and the contract DND has signed. My favourite story is the one of opening up the box of dining room crystal we bought after our wedding and finding my hockey skates packed in with it. The hockey skates were fine; don't worry, there was no problem there.

However, during this past move we had about 18,000 pounds of furniture and effects—that doesn't include my wife. We actually had very little damage, $300 to $400 worth of claims. We submitted them only to be denied the majority of them because it was pointed out to us that DND has signed a contract that says a member has 60 days to submit a claim, but in the fine print, or somewhere we weren't advised about, you have to point out the damage to all your F and E on the day the packers unpack your belongings. That is, of course, virtually impossible when you don't even pull your couch away from the wall for a week or two. Then when you're rearranging your living room, you find out that the back of it is covered in black soot and you don't know where that came from. It wasn't a black couch to start with. Or you go to use your lawn furniture for the first time and you find that the arm is missing. Of course, the movers moved that directly into your garage and you didn't even see it.

A favourite trick of the movers is to ask one of the spouses to work the bingo sheet as they come in, so in actual fact one of the people is taken out of the loop, checking off all the boxes as they come in. You don't have enough people to inspect the furniture and effects as they come in. As a result, DND, in my opinion, is to blame for signing on to such a ludicrous contract, thus leaving the members high and dry.

• 1530

I was so frustrated that I went to the R&D section at NDHQ, the people responsible for taking care of the members in Ottawa. I made a trip in there and saw them. The response I got was, “Sorry, there's nothing we can do about it”. I told them that was totally unacceptable. I just do not see how people are supposed to get ahead in the military when you're given those sorts of opportunities, those contracts. They just doesn't work in the favour of the members.

That's all I have. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Major. You brought up a couple of good points.

Captain Ian Zimmerman.

Captain Ian Zimmerman (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. I am posted here to NDHQ Ottawa under DG AEPM. I would like to bring to light an issue that I believe has not yet been heard by this committee.

That issue deals with the release of serving members. I would like to read to you an excerpt from a colleague's memo, “Prisoners of their Contract”, which addresses this issue that affects me and many others like me.

At this time, there are two basic categories of release that are being subjected to what I perceive to be unfair rules. The first category is made up of members who have less than 20 years of service but do not owe any obligatory service for training. These members are required to submit six months' notice of release. The second category is made up of those members who owe obligatory service. They also have to submit six months' notice, but are not allowed to leave until they complete that obligatory service. Under the six months' release notification period, some members who are trying to leave the military at this time owe several months of obligatory service and others owe several years.

Requiring personnel to provide six months' notice is, I feel, very contentious. The CF maintains that this is to allow the CF more time to replace an individual on release. However, at the same time they say there is no money for postings, so you won't be replaced anyway.

My recollection of Canadian labour law is that an employee can leave any employer without repercussions after providing two weeks' written notice. Members of the federal public service who work at desks alongside us—and many of our other members—are allowed to depart after providing only two weeks' notice.

The next point deals with release from obligatory service. In addition to the six months requirement, as stated in the previous paragraph, members who have undergone subsidized training are denied release from the CF until their obligatory service has expired. The problem with this rule is that for many members their personal situations have changed significantly from the time they started on a subsidized training period. They wish to leave the military service to obtain better working conditions, more pay, a chance of spousal employment, and other such luxuries of life.

The CF is telling them they cannot leave, even though CFAO 15-7 allows members to pay back any remaining time in cash. The CF tells them that although CFAO 15-17 says you can leave should special and unforeseen circumstances arise, the CF gets to determine when these conditions exist. Basically, at this point, you never qualify.

Currently, a large number of high-tech professionals, inside the CF and inside the civilian industry, are moving around. While I can sympathize with the CF in that it does not wish to lose its people, I cannot support keeping hostage people who wish to leave. People who want to quit are not happy and neither are their families. If they wish to leave the CF, they don't wish to be held against their will. In many instances, including my own, they have found alternate employment, in most cases for far greater remuneration, to see how they can improve their living conditions for their families. Yet their employer is denying them the right to do this.

One must realize that the decision to leave the military is not one that is taken lightly. It has perhaps been taken or has developed over several years. The military member will not be happy to stay after having decided that it is time to quit.

• 1535

Many employers do not keep departing employees for even two weeks, as they have recognized that the detriment of having departing members in their midst far outweighs the loss of productivity. It is not uncommon to have one employee unintentionally drag several others out the door with him when the word gets out that company X is hiring for Y dollars more per hour.

No other business in Canada can hold their employees like this. How can we allow the CF to do this to its members?

It is important to realize that it is never convenient to have employees leave an organization. However, it should not be within the purview of an employer to deny them the right to leave. We are not at war. We should allow our people to quit.

I'm aware that many employers in Canada require members to serve a defined period of time to compensate for items such as training and relocation costs and bonuses. But should an employee wish to depart prior to the agreed time, they are allowed to, and they must repay a prorated cost. In the CF's case, the amount to be repaid is the cost of tuition, pay, and other training expenses. All of these are defined in QR and O 15-7.

However, the CF is indicating that they really don't want the expenses or the money; they want our service, something that no other company can demand.

One of the problems is that the CF can force a member to sign a contract if he or she wishes to go on training. But then the CF or the military, the government, can control the whole environment that affects the member while executing the terms of that contract.

For instance, the CF controls the pay, allowances, promotions, postings, and other benefits surrounding a member who signs up for an obligatory service. The CF also gets to determine whether or not it will allow a member to exercise the penalty clause in the contract and pay his or her way out of the Canadian Forces because of what a member deems, or does not deem, to be unforeseen circumstances.

If the CF feels it does not get enough return for the cost of training an individual, then it should increase the rates-of-penalty clause and not hold people over a barrel or against their will. Currently, even prisoners in Canada are allowed early departure for good behaviour.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Capt Ian Zimmerman: When Canada is not at war, members of the Canadian Forces should be allowed to obtain their release with one month's notice, regardless of whether they owe obligatory service. This is double that of any civilian employer in Canada, but would provide military members with a reasonable opportunity to find alternate employment and depart on a timely basis.

Please remember that these members of the Canadian Forces have served their country well. All they want now is a chance to quit without being severely penalized.

My release was submitted in early December in 1997 and was turned down in early February. Even if the military had agreed to my release, the job offer I was pursuing was no longer available. There are not many employers who are willing to wait three months for a new employee to become available.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Captain. I have a few questions or points of clarification.

What is obligatory service?

Capt Ian Zimmerman: That is the official name according to the CFAO. It is a program for people who go back to university, either people who have come from the ranks or people who have come straight from high school. When they go to university, they agree to sign up for an obligatory service period. Normally it is double whatever the time in school was. It's 16 months for every 8 months. So if you go to school for, in my case, four years, you owe five years' worth of service, because the school year is only eight months long.

The Chairman: And if you want to leave in that five-year period, what you've told us this afternoon is that the military would let you pay off your expenses. Did I understand you right?

• 1540

Capt Ian Zimmerman: Previously, until November 1997, a person could leave the military prior to that obligatory service if they agreed to pay off what they owed of the debt—a prorated amount. After November 1997 that was no longer possible. They are now telling anybody with obligatory service that they not get out of the military. As well, until 1996, anybody without obligatory service who took the FRP did not have to pay back a dime for school; it was waived.

The Chairman: Okay. Thank you very much.

Corporal Deborah Kent (Individual Presentation): Just to clarify, you cannot be nailed for whatever is said here, right?

The Chairman: That is correct.

Cpl Deborah Kent: Okay. For those in the media, I do not give you permission to use my name, nor anything I say.

I've been in the military for eighteen and a half years and I've been around it all my life. I have seen a lot of changes, some of them good, some of them not so good. A lot of things that should change haven't changed. There's always been a seemed favouritism for officers over non-commissioned members. With the accommodation assistance allowance, privates and corporals get less than colonels and generals. The idea of accommodation assistance allowance is to help people afford to live here and other places, where you get it, and privates and corporals need more help than colonels and generals.

On living accommodations, I've read enough about this in the press. Some of the housing on base here in Uplands was offered to City Living, which controls welfare. They turned it down because it would cost too much to bring it up to standard for welfare people.

On change of dress, contrary to some people's opinions, this change of dress for the army is not held very highly. It is actually a very large waste of money. I work in clothing stores, so I know this. Right now it costs $556.01 to kit up one person to the basic level of combats, and that is with the old stock. When we get the new style, the cost will be even more. A better idea would have been to get rid of the garrison boots and jacket and issue a V-neck sweater. This would have simplified everything and put everybody at the same standard.

I also heard today that another committee made up of just senior ranks is now considering that the army non-commissioned members will have their clothing upkeep allowance taken away, because supposedly everyone can wear combats. The navy non-commissioned members will have their COA reduced, because some time in the future they will be wearing NCDs, which are naval combat dress, and they have not decided what they're going to do with the air force.

Not all land non-commissioned members are allowed to wear combats. Many of the different colonels and equivalents don't like how the NCMs look in combats, so they have decreed that they must wear their dress uniforms. A lab tech came in and had to buy over $100 worth of clothing because the boss said combats were not to be worn by anyone who had to deal with the public. It was okay before for people to wear their work dress but not their combats. This new dress decision has not helped the NCMs.

The money raised through cash sales is going into a general pot for the government. This money should go into the financial coding for clothing, so we can have money to buy things like badges for shirts and new clothing that is coming out. Right now the money that's brought back in goes to buy nice little toys like a computer for somebody's desk. Just here in Ottawa in one year we would be able to put over $1 million back into the fund for clothing.

• 1545

Everybody seems to be concerned about morale. The morale would be greatly improved if the people who made decisions would bother to do the work for a while to find out how it's done, and ask those of us who do the work what our ideas are for change to make it work better.

Right now my husband works at CFS Leitrim. They made a wonderful little decision that people out there would work 12-hour shifts—two days, two nights, and supposedly four days off. My husband gets off at 6.30 a.m. from his last night shift. He has to go back to work three days later. He has to sleep. He has no family time during those four days of work. His health is going downhill and he has recently been put on high blood pressure pills because of the stress from the shift work.

There have been many medical documents that state shift work is extremely bad for people. They used to work 8-hour shifts, but somebody higher up who doesn't do shift work decided it wasn't working too well and the numbers didn't look good, so they had to change it.

I worked 12-hour shifts when I was working in Trenton. I know how hard it is, and I also know what it was like to listen to the day people who said “If you take four days off, you get 12 off”. I also worked 48 hours in four days. It takes a day person almost seven days, and they get a weekend in there, to work the same number of hours.

It seems to a lot of the junior ranks that the people who are making the decisions care more about the numbers on a piece of paper than about the people.

On the cutbacks, we have seen many corporals, master corporals, and sergeants cut, plus CR-3s and CR-4s. These are the people doing the work. They're the ones putting the paperwork through and ordering the stuff. It's like they don't matter—cut them. Yet we see the number of bosses increase.

Last year, right after they said the number of generals was going to be decreased, I don't know how many officers came down and said they were getting promoted to generals, but I'm sure it was over 15. For one general, you could have three corporals.

I know that our higher ranks do a lot of work, but I don't know what it is exactly because I've never had to do their jobs, but they also have never had to do mine. I have been working in clothing stores since April 1997. Since that date I have not had a coffee break. I am lucky if I get my lunch hours. We also work shift work there.

It's getting to the point, with reference to clothing, that with all of these new decisions being made to send people out on exercise here and there, we're the ones, because we're behind the counter, who get the heck because there's no stock. We don't have stock because people are spending money elsewhere. They won't give the money to the people who have to buy clothing, so we can kit the members, so they can go do their jobs properly.

One of the big things I think we could do to improve morale is to have leaders who lead by deciding what is good for the CF and for the personnel, and not lead by popular opinion. I want leaders I can respect because they take responsibility for their mistakes and work to correct them. I have a lot more respect for someone who admits they made a mistake and own up to what they did than someone who covers it up.

I'm tired of reading in the newspaper about yet another scandal. Who cares? We know we do a good job; we know what we do. We have public affairs officers, so I wish they would just speak the truth and tell these lovely media people the truth about what is going on. If the media really want to know what it's like, sign a waiver and come and do the job. Go to Yugoslavia and live in the tents for three or four months. Find out what it's like to be away from your families for six months to a year. Then you can tell us we're not doing our jobs properly. But until you do it, don't complain about it.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Could you come back to the microphone, please? Mr. Pratt has a question for you.

Mr. David Pratt: Corporal, what is the most common complaint you hear from the soldiers, sailors, and air men and women you've talked to, as far as clothing is concerned?

Cpl Deborah Kent: The big one has been this change in uniform for the army people.

Right now, for the navy officers, we don't have the Canada badges that need to be sewn onto the shirts. They can't get new shirts unless they bring in their old badges, because there's no money to buy them. Right now they're scrambling to do a speed-buy to buy those little badges.

• 1550

Mr. David Pratt: Is there a particular piece of kit that has proven to be substandard? Were you getting lots of complaints in terms of replacements?

Cpl Deborah Kent: Substandard? We have no rucksacks. The combat boots fall apart. We also don't have any right now. Nobody across Canada has any.

Mr. David Pratt: Any combat boots?

Cpl Deborah Kent: Yes, combat boots. We have very small sizes and very large sizes; nothing in between. We can't exchange boots. I've had people come in with the side blown out, and I can't give them a new pair of boots. And we're not expecting to get any boots until September.

Mr. David Pratt: When the committee was over in Bosnia, one of the complaints we heard was that they had a fair number of the mid-sizes but nothing smaller and nothing larger.

Cpl Deborah Kent: Tell them to get a hold of clothing stores in Ottawa. We have lots of teeny ones and lots of boats, but other than that—

Mr. David Pratt: Are there any complaints from the female members about the sizes of the boots that are available?

Cpl Deborah Kent: Right now we can't get the new style of uniform because there's not the money to clear the shelves of the old stock so we can get the new stock in. If we wanted to go to all brand-new uniforms, it would cost over $6 million, and there isn't the money.

Mr. David Pratt: I think it used to be that years ago they had these army surplus stores set up, and I don't remember the details of those, but—

Cpl Deborah Kent: We still do. It would cost the military money. We would sell a box. It would go as a box of scrap. We might get enough money to cover the cost of a tri-wall, which is $20.

There's waste and then there's— A good idea would be to ask us. I know there's a suggestion for an award committee. I've been trying to find out how to get something in there for the last four years. I still don't know. Streamline it.

They were going to put everything on computers. The way we work in clothing stores, we don't have the time to go to a computer to read the routine orders off the computer unless we stay and work overtime. If we come in before work starts or if we stay after work, then we can hopefully get on the computer, if it's up, and read this stuff.

We don't have the training. The last time I was on a course for my trade was 1983. We have all these new computers. I've learned on my own. I request to go on computer courses. I request to go on French courses. I still have not been sent. I have been on three six-week French courses, and there was about a two-year lag between each one. When I joined, it was just before they made a six-month block course mandatory. The French could go on English courses, but the English couldn't go on French courses.

In my 18.5 years, not including Borden and Cornwallis, I have had 10 postings. Some of it has been bad, because one of the things is that you never get promoted if you get posted that many times. The only place I ever went where I wasn't put at the bottom of the totem pole was in Trenton, because my major stated that nobody has the right to a certain position just because they've been there a long time. But with every other posting I've had, if you're new man on the block, you go to the bottom.

Mr. David Pratt: Do you think postings are used in any respect as a disciplinary measure?

Cpl Deborah Kent: I've never had that experience, but I've been to some wonderful places, such as Inuvik, Masset, and Val d'Or. I've enjoyed those experiences, but I also have been told— It was used once for me, and it came through my boss, because a career manager was very upset with me. He was thinking of posting me to Petawawa to the army unit, because he didn't like the way I talked to him. I happened to go up to him at a coffee break, in a coffee room, and ask him a question, and he thought, “The gall of that corporal to talk to me!”

I wear a corporal's rank. You can't tell the difference between me and somebody who just got theirs. It would be nice if we had something to distinguish the fact that there are corporals out there— We haven't been promoted, sometimes for our attitude, sometimes through nothing we've done, but we're shown no respect because we're just a corporal. Sometimes I have more time in, more experience, than my warrant or my chief or something, but you're not given any recognition for that, because in this organization, respect is by rank.

• 1555

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

Cpl Deborah Kent: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Corporal, did you say your husband is a member of the—?

Cpl Deborah Kent: Yes, he's in the military.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Have you had any difficulty being posted together?

Cpl Deborah Kent: That's one thing that's kept me from getting promoted. Staying a corporal has been a blessing, because then we could go together. If I were any higher, we wouldn't be able to be together.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So then you know of married military personnel who have not been posted together?

Cpl Deborah Kent: I know of one career manager who deliberately posted one person to Esquimalt and the other half of the couple to Halifax.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That would make communication easy, wouldn't it?

Cpl Deborah Kent: Their marriage split up after three years. I've been married for 14 years, and in my husband's trade, that's a miracle.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

Cpl Deborah Kent: Thank you.

The Chairman: Corporal, you mentioned that the clothing allowance is to be withdrawn. Where did you hear this?

Cpl Deborah Kent: One of the corporals I work with was told that yesterday by a captain who's working on the committee.

The Chairman: Okay. You talked about the accommodation allowance; I believe it's one month's salary.

Cpl Deborah Kent: That's on postings. That's a totally different allowance. The people living here in Ottawa who rent get accommodation assistance allowance, and the higher rank you are, the more you get.

The Chairman: One of the suggestions that was made to us was, instead of having it one month's salary, to have a fixed amount—whether you're a corporal, a major, or a captain, it's one amount. What do you think of that?

Cpl Deborah Kent: Those are two totally different things. One is a posting allowance.

The Chairman: Or the—

Cpl Deborah Kent: The triple-A?

The Chairman: Not the triple-A, no. When you're posted, they give you one month's salary to help pay for the different—

Cpl Deborah Kent: Yes, posting allowance.

The Chairman: Posting allowance. Instead of having one month's salary, you could have a fixed amount. Whether you're a captain or a corporal, you would have the same amount. How do you feel about that?

Cpl Deborah Kent: It would be okay. It's taxable anyway, so it's not like you get much of it. It actually hurts you, to be honest.

The Chairman: Okay, thank you very much.

Cpl Deborah Kent: Thank you.

The Chairman: Chief Warrant Officer André Beaudet.

Chief Warrant Officer André Beaudet (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, gentlemen. Some of this will be a rehash of what you've heard about the military forces through your trips across Canada, but being the chief warrant officer of a division, a lot of these points are brought to me by my personnel, and most of them I do believe firmly.

One of them was—and this happened to me—that one of the senior generals told us not to wait for the SCONDVA committee to do anything about the problems we're having in the military. So I put the question to you, will the report be shelved and stay there and gather dust for the next 20 to 30 years, and then we'll say, “Oh, gee, we have a report on this”? I find that very disturbing at our level, because if that's the case, then it's only an exercise to vent our frustrations.

The Chairman: It would behove me to answer that right away.

I can assure you this report will not be shelved. It's true we've heard, going from base to base, that a number of reports have been written and it seems nothing has ever come of them. But I'd like to say this is the first time a committee of parliamentarians has gone out and talked directly to the Canadian Armed Forces.

• 1600

We have a report that we will be writing up. We will be presenting it in the House of Commons in the fall, and the government has 150 days to reply to our recommendations.

The members, the MPs you see sitting here in front of you, have put in a lot of hours, a lot of time, and a lot of effort. Speaking for myself, I would be extremely disappointed and angry if no actions were taken on our recommendations. That I can assure you.

CWO André Beaudet: Thank you, sir. I'll carry on with my points.

Recently the military members living in what was then called Base Rockcliffe learned from the French newspaper across the river that the sale of Rockcliffe was impending. We've since talked to the member of Parliament for the area, Mr. Mauril Bélanger, and he said, yes, within five years it's gone and all the members will be removed from that location, one way or the other. Certainly the members will be cared for, but we don't know how.

Secondly, there was the recent PMQ raise, again in Ottawa. The members got a 1.9% raise; the PMQs are now going to be raised by 2% to 3%. I found that a bit difficult to swallow, so I went to the agency on behalf of the members and myself and said, how can you do this? They said, well, we're following the local rent board ruling, the provincial rent board ruling. I said, yes, you do, but when it comes to repairs and maintenance, we don't count; it doesn't go in there. She said, yes, it's different.

I find it difficult to say yes, your rent can be raised more than what you get in your pay raise because it follows the guidelines of the province of Ontario ruling, yet when it comes to repairs and maintenance, it doesn't. To me, there's quite a bit of an imbalance there. Either it does or it doesn't. You can't have a driver's licence for a vehicle that's not a vehicle. It's either/or.

Another point is the single personnel coming into the national capital; that is, corporals, and so on. Most of them are single people, it's the first time they've lived in a large city, they have a limited income, and there is no accommodation for them, nor is there any help. It's “Find your own.”

Most of them will find a place at $700 to $800 a month. Like I say, these people don't make oodles of money; they make maybe $30,000 at the most. All of sudden they're thrown into a big city. Find your way to work, find housing, find accommodation. We shouldn't be surprised to see them on welfare. I've told them to go in in uniform, and then people will really recognize you and the media will report you.

The corporal was just talking about morale issues in the service. Well, there isn't any. I wish there was some that we could raise, but there is no morale. I've been in enough years that the last time we had morale almost as low as this, but not lower, was in 1967, before the big raise. People were getting out in droves; people were very dissatisfied with the service. This is worse.

At the moment, the service does not look after its personnel at all. As she was saying about the medical, people in my unit are scared to go to the MIR, the medical inspection room, to get aspirin, because they know if one day the MO who's in there is awake, he will say, “We should do a review about you, and if we find something wrong, something that's going to cause us to give you aspirin for six months, you're out.” That's the truth. That's the way it's going. So a lot of time I do get the aspirins for them. And it's only aspirins; I'm not talking about other things.

We have major hockey tournaments, such as in Bagotville, where it goes on until 8 p.m., but at 4 p.m. the MIR is closed. So if you get injured, good luck, and we'll find a way to blame you and not the service.

Again, in Ottawa—speaking strictly in Ottawa—because the system is run by civilian managers and not leaders, most of the divisions have big directors general and they're all civilians, and if you go to a meeting, it's all civilians. There may be one military, if you're lucky.

A lot of military have their career on hold because they can't get service courses to get promoted, the reason being, if you go on a course for six months, although it's required by your service, the position is gone. So we can't afford to lose the position; therefore you don't go. Wait for your next posting, if you ever have one.

• 1605

That is very difficult for a member to swallow when they want to join the army and get ahead. He'd like to get ahead but he can't get the courses. He can't get the courses because the position is cancelled. It's “Thank you for saving us that much money. Your position is gone.”

I mean, where does that leave a member? I'm sitting there between two chairs. To me, it's not too bad, because I'm old enough, and I'm almost phased out, but for the guy replacing me, what is he going to feel like?

Speaking of the morale issue, as an old soldier, when I joined it used to be that leaders earned your respect. Today we legislate it: You shall. It's the statement of defence ethics: loyalty, honesty, courage, diligence, fairness, and responsibility. I have to have it. He doesn't. I mean, if I'm a colonel, going to court martial, I get a $4,000 bonus for proficiency. Next month I'm in court martial. I feel very good about that. I have to tell my soldiers “Hey, you have to be loyal to the service”. But why should I be when he's not?

That is what's going on. I can go on and on for months. I'm sure you've heard it. But that is what's going on today. We do not care about a member.

A member recently came from Bosnia with his legs blown off. He was not out of the hospital when they had his release on his desk. What it says, in effect, is, “Get out, because you're costing us too much money”. We're not looking at the people.

Then there's the clothing issue. Some members of the operations unit have only one pair of boots—they bought them at a surplus store—and yet they're in an operational unit. Shirts have been sewn and resewn by the member's wife. He has a nice wife. Mine wouldn't do it for me, unfortunately. We look like a ragtag bag of misfits.

When we were in Europe years ago we used to laugh at some NATO members because their army was so poor they couldn't afford anything. Well, now it's us. We look like a bunch of misfits. We haven't got anything to wear, and what we do have is faded, worn out, in disrepair. The boots are falling apart.

We can buy computers, though. Gee, can we buy computers! I have all kinds of computers. I don't even know what to do with them. Reading the orders on the net is very nice, but the little guy in Esquimalt can't read it, because he doesn't have the computer. He doesn't even know what I'm talking about. If I give him a CD-ROM with the orders, it doesn't fit in his calculator.

I mean, there has to be a balance. Our people have to show leadership and Parliament indeed has to show leadership as well with the forces. It's nice to get the numbers down, but stop giving us taskings. I mean, hey, we're going all over the world right now, and the numbers are dwindling. The same guy who comes back from Bosnia is shipped to Mozambique. He's shipped to Guatemala. He's shipped to Kuwait. Give him a break. His marriage is on the line. We used to laugh at that at one point because it was only the civilians who did that, and now it's the military.

Fortunately, I'm in a position in Ottawa where I'm able to minimize my travel, but not so long ago I used to know when I went to work but never knew when I would come back. A lot of times my wife just got my beret back, because they sent me away and forgot to tell my family.

Again, if I'm away, it used to be that I could, as a sergeant major, call the transport unit and say, “Clear the snow in her driveway and help her out if she needs to go to the doctor”, but now I can't. We're ordered not to do that.

She's on her own. She doesn't exist. You, the member, do exist, because we need you, and that's it. Don't complain. A few complaints and you're out.

So your family's left high and dry, unfortunately. That's what's causing a lot of hardship in marriage. Not only do we not look after the member but we also don't look after the family. We don't care about the family. As far as we know, there shouldn't be any family, hence the reason we want to get rid of all the PMQs in the national capital. It's a headache and a half, apparently, for some people.

Thank you, sir. I think that's enough of your time at the moment.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Major Ron Miller.

Major Ron Miller (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. I'd like to preface my comments by thanking you all for taking the time to come and see us, to talk to us and hear our concerns.

By way of introduction, I'd like to say that I began my career in 1971 as a private in the infantry. I've had a wonderful career, and I've really enjoyed it all. In the last seven years I've spent two and a half of them on operational deployment on UN peacekeeping missions around the world. In the last year and a half I have been engaged in coordinating and developing the peacekeeping training for the Canadian Armed Forces. So my comments are going to be in that vein, how we do peacekeeping, what effect it has on our people, and how we can do it better.

• 1610

When I started my peacekeeping career I went to Central America, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, during the civil wars there. When I came back from that I was terribly ill, had lost about 55 pounds, had mushroom spores growing in my stomach, and was suffering from a certain amount of critical incident stress syndrome. In 1992 the Canadian Forces really didn't understand any of that, and in fact when I arrived back in Canada they were happy to see me and announced that I would be deploying yet again in about two weeks' time on an exercise for about a month. This was not a good thing.

I'm happy to say that things have changed to a certain extent since then; they've gotten better, but they can get a whole lot better. One of the problems is the whole system by which we select, train, administer while deployed, and conduct the post-deployment administration of our soldiers. We don't do a very good job of that. In the past, when peacekeeping was pretty simple to do, a unidimensional, interpositional, Cyprus kind of thing, where we patrolled up and down a line of demilitarization, it was a pretty easy thing to do.

Nowadays it's a whole lot more complex, and we can't afford to not do the right thing in terms of training our people to deal with those situations. So how do we sort some of these problems out? Because of a lot of the reductions in the Canadian Forces and so on, we don't have enough troops whereby we can send whole homogeneous units into a situation like Cyprus. Now what we do is we take people from across the Canadian Forces, from a variety of different units, from remote locations, and we squash them together for a short period of time. Then we fling them off into harm's way without the benefit of having that unit cohesion, without the benefit of having the support they would necessarily need or get as a homogeneous unit.

I understand you were recently in Bosnia and have returned from there. I'd just like to say that Bosnia is a good example of that, where there are a lot of people there who come from a variety of locations across the Canadian Forces. They go, they serve, and they come back. The individual augments who are from across the Canadian Forces are then sent back to wherever they came from and virtually forgotten about. Then we have a surprise when two or three months down the road, one or two of them blow their brains out because they haven't been getting the kind of support and the kind of follow-up they need after they go on these kinds of peacekeeping missions. That's the post-deployment side of the house.

The pre-deployment side of the house to a certain extent needs some work as well. Recently we had an incident where a young man deployed to Bosnia and within two or three days of arriving there blew his brains out. You have to ask yourself, there must have been some indications before this individual went there that there were problems that would have precluded his deployment into such a theatre. Yet nothing came to pass.

I would like to say that if we're going to go and do this kind of thing, then we have to do it a whole lot better. Since we don't have the kinds of troops where we can now send homogeneous units out to do these missions and we have to do it as a composite kind of affair, we have to get a whole lot better in how we go about it.

• 1615

One of the problems is that we leave this kind of thing up to a rather disparate chain of command to generate these forces. In the past, that was okay, because you sent whole units and that was great. But now, you've got a whole lot of different organizations generating troops. They don't all know what the necessities are and the preparation and training of these people for deployment. They don't know the administrative aspects that are required.

In a lot of cases, in theatre, you'll find a number of different soldiers who are administered from a number of different locations who are not always at the same standard. Of course, when they go back home, again, people don't understand necessarily the requirements of follow-up they need in order to get them properly reintegrated back into society. In fact, that's what you're doing.

My suggestion is that what we need is one organization that's focused solely on foreign operations. It can be focused on taking a person and going through the proper selection, preparation, and training process, and so on. They would deploy the person into the theatre and then administer them while they're there. Then, when the person comes back, they would do the proper post-deployment administration.

If you have one organization that's committed to doing that, then you're going to have a proper standard in terms of making sure that all these people are administered, trained, and looked after to the same standard. By having it spread across the Canadian Forces, you have different standards and results, and some of them are not very good.

Another thing I noticed is that there tends to be confusion as to what the requirements are for peacekeeping. We seem to have hung our hat on the idea that general purpose combat capability is all you need to go and do peacekeeping. Indeed, if you're going to send soldiers into harm's way into a theatre of war to be a peacekeeper, then they need to understand war in all of its manifestations. Therefore, you need to have soldiers who are trained in combat.

Having said that, peacekeeping is another issue. There is another set of skills that you definitely need in order to be an effective peacekeeper. I'm not convinced that we have done a very good job of necessarily incorporating that into our training.

General purpose combat capability was fine when you had Cyprus, which was pretty tame for the most part. But nowadays, with Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, and so on, you're talking about multidimensional peacekeeping missions that involve not only the peacekeeping and peace enforcement side of the house, but the pre-deployment or pre-conflict preventative deployment, where you're assisting in diplomatic efforts to avoid conflict in the first case, and the post-conflict stages, when you're dealing with building a lasting peace.

Those shoulders of conflict are really the parts that we're not very good at doing. The war-fighting side of the house and that kind of thing is fine, but the skills we need to be able to operate within the full spectrum of conflict haven't really been well developed, and they need to be. To do that, I think we need to look at incorporating this into our overall officer and NCM professional development training.

Right now, we try to do it all as add-ons just prior to deployment, but that is proving more and more not to be sufficient to deal with the issues. So I would caution you about thinking that general purpose combat capability is a panacea for everything you need to do in peacekeeping, because it's not.

I sat here and listened to a lot of people talking about quality of life issues and so on. Yes, they're pretty important. As a final point, I'd just like to say that from what I have seen, since being back here in Canada and being at National Defence Headquarters, we seem to be racing down the road to restructuring, but we've forgotten about the human factor when we do that. We've forgotten that the decisions we make have an impact on the people who make up our organization. In fact, in our organization, people are our absolutely most important aspect.

• 1620

I only caution that if we're going to continue to do this restructuring—I admit change is important and good—we have to do a better job of looking at how we implement it and the impact it has all the way down the line.

I have no further points.

The Chairman: David.

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

I appreciate getting your comments, Major. I thought you made some very interesting points. I have a couple of questions for you.

With respect to the troops we saw in Bosnia and your point about bringing in disparate groups from different parts of the country, just from my own observation—I can assure you that I have no specialized military knowledge—they did seem to be generally homogeneous in the sense that the bulk of the people came from Petawawa with the Royal Canadian Dragoons, the 2 Service Battalion, and the 1st Royal Canadian Regiment.

They did have a medical group that we saw in Coralici that came from Valcartier. I'm not sure where the engineers were based, but perhaps it was Petawawa as well, I don't know.

The common complaint that we had was that even when they were over there, they were under in strength as far as people away on leave were concerned, whether it was a 96-hour leave or whether they were on home leave. That was the common complaint we heard over there.

On the issue of peacekeeping and combat capability, I think your comments are right on the mark based on what we saw over there. When we were in Drvar especially, the troops three weeks before had been involved in what was essentially riot control. I had the opportunity to speak with a group of British officers who were actually a part of the helicopter crew. They mentioned to me that Canadians are with the best of them as far as the combat capability is concerned, but the British troops have the added experience of Northern Ireland in terms of dealing with the situation there.

Have you got any specific suggestions in terms of particular types of training that we should be looking at? This goes a little bit beyond obviously the quality of life issue, but for the person on the ground, dealing with that situation, whether it's in Drvar or wherever, it's a quality of life issue for them if they're not properly trained to do the job they've been ordered to do.

Maj Ron Miller: Exactly. You're right that it is a quality of life issue, because if you go into a situation where you don't feel that you have all the skills and tools you need to deal with it, this very quickly becomes a quality of life issue.

As for suggestions, as I say, we need to start incorporating some of this training into our officer and NCM professional development training. There's a fear in the Canadian Forces that if we do that, it's somehow going to diminish our capability to do combat training. There's a real fear that if we embrace that requirement, then somehow the media, the government, whomever, is going to force us then into becoming nothing but a constabulary.

Again, I have to point to the fact that in order to be an effective peacekeeper, you have to understand war in all its manifestations. The only way to do that is to be a trained soldier, but you can't disregard the fact that you need a whole lot of different other skills to deal with peacekeeping situations. How you handle a roadblock in a war-fighting scenario is entirely different from how you would handle it in Bosnia or Haiti or wherever. So you have to understand those things and those issues and so on.

We have a number of institutions in Canada that have been developed, such as the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre and the Peace Support Training Centre at Kingston and so on to deal with those sorts of things, but there's still isn't the kind of emphasis in the Canadian Forces to push that and to focus on the necessity for incorporating that kind of training into the overall professional development training. We keep thinking that doing a little bit of this stuff just before deployment is going to be good enough, but as I mentioned before, peacekeeping has become far too complex an issue these days to be catered to by a little bit of add-on training just before you deploy. If anything, I would ask you to please take that to heart. Don't think that general purpose combat-capable training is the panacea for everything, because it is not.

• 1625

Mr. David Pratt: I appreciate your comments. I think one of the things we heard from some of the commanding officers as well was that it's far better to overtrain for a mission than it is to undertrain. That was certainly very clear to us.

I should add as well that even though they weren't trained to deal with the situation that arose in Drvar, it seems as though the troops did just a tremendous job of handling it and getting through it without any loss of life.

Maj Ron Miller: Yes.

You mentioned another point about the individuals sort of coming from— They seem to be homogeneous. Yes, but there are a whole lot of people out there—individual augmentees, they call them—coming from a variety of different locations. Yes, you might see this troop that for the most part comes from this particular base, but there are a whole lot of people who have been parachuted into that organization from a number of different locations to make up that element. It's those people I'm most worried about. Those are the ones who don't have the benefit of the unit, who don't have the benefit of a post-deployment follow-up, and so on. In fact, they are cast to the four winds and forgotten about.

We need to do a better job with that. I believe that because we've got a chain of command that tends to be very diverse in its focus—NATO operations, domestic operations, this, that, and the other thing, they can't focus sufficiently on the requirements for the preparation, training, administration, and post-deployment administration of our troops that they ought to be able to do.

Maybe we should be looking at one organization that can in fact do that. This idea in fact has its basis internationally as well. There are a number of other countries that do exactly that. Maybe Canada ought to start looking at that side of the house.

Mr. David Pratt: Are you aware of what the Americans are doing in that regard, or the British for that matter?

Maj Ron Miller: I know the British have an organization they call the PJHQ, permanent joint force headquarters, that to a certain extent does that. The Austrians have an organization that basically does that. The Finns do. There are a number of other countries in the world that do. I'm not quite sure how the Americans do it, but then again they are a fairly resource-rich country that can afford a lot of different things. I would be more focused on those kinds of countries that are more in line with what Canada's military capability is, as an example.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Chairman: Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you.

Major, when you were talking about the individual augmentees, some of those come from various places, but some of them are reservists.

Maj Ron Miller: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Can you help me? I've heard the figure 15% or 10% of people deployed are going to be reservists. There seems to be not a specified way in which they determine which places are going to be augmented by reservists. Do you have any thoughts on how we're currently doing it and what we should do?

Maj Ron Miller: Well, the reserves are really an untapped resource that we really haven't focused enough on in terms of preparation and training for them. A number of reservists augment the missions that go over. There are not enough. There ought to be more. We rely too heavily on the regular force. If you want to augment with reservists, it costs you that much more because you've got to pay the wages and so on, whereas if you do it with a regular force person it's not as expensive.

• 1630

So it's a money issue when it comes to that, but the bottom line is there are very capable reservists out there who can do the job and do it wonderfully well. Tapping into that tends to be a bit of a problem because of the money issue in paying wages.

They come from a variety of different locations across Canada and they acquit themselves very well. They're not necessarily trained to the same standard as the regular force, nor should they be, but they can be brought up to the required standard in a short period of time. A lot of people tend to look at our reservists and think they're not really up to snuff in terms of what we require to do the job, but when you compare our reservists to the regular forces of a number of different countries—and I assure you I have lots of experience with the regular forces of a number of different countries—our reservists are heads and heels better trained than any of them. We need to make better use of our reservists, and we need to look at better ways of incorporating them into our deployments, our foreign deployments and so on.

Having said that, the reservists are the ones who really have the most problems. When they go back in a lot of cases, again, they're shunted off; they're forgotten about. There aren't the processes in place to look after them when they have a problem.

Before I went to Haiti I was the operations and training officer for the reserve district here in Ottawa. There were a number of cases where reservists returned from UN missions with problems with critical incident stress and so on, but it was difficult to get them the necessary kind of follow-up action. That meant putting them on another class B or C contract or whatever and having to pay wages and this, that, and the other thing. It became difficult to look after them properly.

So the reservists play a big role, and they can play a bigger role. There are a lot of them out there, particularly now as people retire from the regular force and get into the reserves. There are a lot of people out there with a wealth of experience that we're not tapping into sufficiently to augment the regular force in doing a lot of these missions.

I don't know if I've answered your questions.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Not specifically, but you've given me good information on something that I perhaps would have got to.

I guess what I heard, and from a surprising number of people, was that there seems to be a fair amount of resentment. The fact that some of their buddies had been left at home who desperately wanted to be in Bosnia, who needed to be there for financial reasons, who were told at the last minute, “I'm sorry, you can't come because we have to bring x number of reservists and you're going to have to stay at home so a reservist can come.” Having said that, they also told me they had no problem with the reservists who were there on an individual basis. They certainly could do the job and they fit in well, but there was still this sense that the regular force should have been asked first; after all, this was their chosen career, this was what they wanted to do, and they needed this to support their family.

Maj Ron Miller: I'm always suspicious of people who want to go off and do foreign-deployed missions only for the financial gain of it. My personal motivation for it is because I honestly believe in what I do when I go to these places; the money issue is superfluous. However, having said that, and I understand there are a number of other things that impact on that motivation, I'll leave that one aside.

From my understanding, reservists are picked up to go on these missions and there isn't a quota necessarily established. It is based on what we need for the mission, what we can fill from the regular force, and what we can't fill from the regular force we will try to fill from a variety of other places, and the reserves certainly figure prominently in that. To my knowledge, there isn't a bona fide effort to say x% of this mission must be reservists. I think it's done more on what we need, where the skill sets are, and how we fill those skill sets, and if we can't fill them from the regular force, then we fill them from the reserves.

• 1635

If anybody does get left behind, in a lot of cases there's a good reason for it. It may be a family issue; it may be whatever else that causes those people to remain behind, or the necessity to have really good people remaining behind to look after the families, and so on, as part of the rear party, to look after the families and so on of the people we are deploying. You need good people to do that as well.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: If they're chosen in that fashion, then I don't disagree with it, but it was suggested that it was done otherwise. I appreciate your response. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Chief Petty Officer, 1st Class, Bob Todd.

Chief Petty Officer, 1st Class, Bob Todd (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. You'll have to bear with me here, because I didn't plan on speaking today.

I'm the operations chief at Canadian Forces Station Leitrim. I have 31 years in this outfit. I've served from Masset on the B.C. coast to Newfoundland, from Inuvik to exchange with the U.S. forces. In all honesty, I feel that I'm part of one of the best damn outfits in the world. I'm taking exception to some things I hear here today.

Am I emotional? Yes. Why? It's not because of you and not because of the people in this room, but because of what the press does to people who try so hard.

Since I've been in this outfit, I've lost my father and I've lost my sister, who I spent 12 years with, for 12 months, seeing in her 38 years of life— I have a mother, 74 years old, in Vancouver, a city that, in all honesty, I don't believe as a member of the armed forces I can afford to go back and live in; yet for 31 years I voted in the riding of Vancouver Kingsway.

I had a recent e-mail from a member of the United States Marine Corps, stationed in London, who, on the visit of the HMCS Fredericton—and I'm not hard navy—wanted to know if I had an operational team on board that he could go down and discuss operational matters with. I said no and left it at that. A few days ago I got an e-mail from that same master sergeant in the United States Marine Corps, who commented on the professionalism and the status of the HMCS Fredericton on her visit to London.

With respect to shift work in the Canadian Forces, I work in an operation, and have for 31 years, and the personnel who work for me are mainly shift workers. Nurses are shift workers; air force people work shift. Yet we receive the same pay as the day workers. We receive the same pay as anybody my rank. Corporal Kent's husband works for me. Corporal Kent's husband is a master corporal. As a shift worker, he makes the same salary as a master corporal does in the same pay field who works straight days. Yes, we have problems working shift work.

I attended a seminar in Toronto a year ago, along with three of my staff, to see if we could do things better. We are continually working to do things better, and I can assure Corporal Kent in all honesty that we are working to improve that. But until we get more resources or firm taskings or a firm mission, we can't do any better. In fact, the members who are working that shift system, after constant review with the members, have voted that is the system they would work if they can't work the preferred one.

• 1640

It's kind of ironic. I don't speak French and my nickname is “Toad”. I was born on June 24, Saint Jean Baptiste Day. I've served with members from every province and nationality in Canada. Some of my best friends are members of the Haida nation, and all I have to say is that I'm damn proud of who I am and I'm damn proud to be in the military. And if the press and other people would just appreciate that, so would I.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Captain Steve Manser.

Captain Steve Manser (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I'd like to start my comments by saying that I find it extremely extraordinary that we all have the opportunity to address a committee such as this one. I'm going on 17 years of service in the Canadian Forces, and this type of committee is unheard of, so it's quite interesting to watch.

Just to set up the situation, I know there are some people here who are fairly emotional and have had some personal wrong done to them. I feel like I'm in the minority. Up until now, anyway, I've had a reasonably good career in the Canadian Forces. I've had good jobs, for the most part, and for the most part, I've worked for fairly competent people, fair people. I've received the courses and postings I've requested sooner or later, so I don't really have a lot of personal grudges against or criticisms of the military.

However, I do have a few ideas. When the opportunity arose to address you, I sat down and thought, well, what type of suggestions can I make?

I'm a construction engineer, by the way, so I'll pattern some of my comments on the married quarters, but I'll also talk about CANEX and just some ideas I came up with regarding morale and quality of life. Some of them might not be very coherent, and if they're not, simply don't write them down.

In regard to CANEX, I've made several trips to the States, where they have an organization called “Base Exchange”, and it seems to me that their system is geared much more to the welfare of the serviceman and servicewoman than our CANEX system is.

In general, CANEX should be—and I'll read verbatim what I've written—patterned after the army and air force exchange system in the United States. CANEX currently does not appear to offer any tangible advantages to CF personnel that cannot be found elsewhere. Unless CANEX becomes totally non-profit and strictly devoted to providing service exclusively to Canadian Forces members, it should be replaced by another organization.

Here's a case in point. When I was at my previous posting at Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, I happened to ask the barber why our haircuts cost $8 or $9. He said it was because he had to pay rent to CANEX. CANEX was charging a contractor-barber rent in a National Defence building, and to me, that didn't make a lot of sense. They should be bringing in a contractor who pays a small nominal fee and passes the savings on to the soldiers, who were forced, at that particular base, at that particular time, to get a haircut every 1 1/2 or 2 weeks. At $10 that can add up for a private recruit or an officer-cadet recruit. There are little things like that.

If CANEX were to remain, I'd like to see it offer some designated mortgage rates or loan rates to Canadian Forces personnel, perhaps based on the Canadian Forces posting loan that is available to people who are posted overseas.

I just came back from Haiti last year—actually, with Major Miller—and one of the benefits I discovered that was available to people posted overseas was a $25,000 loan at very low interest rates, payable over four years. Why isn't that available to the rest of the Canadian Forces?

I'd like to see some government-subsidized day care for the members of the Canadian Forces and for civil service members.

• 1645

A lot of these things are not based on providing a pay raise but on enabling members to have more disposable income.

I'd like to see the establishment of family-oriented rest and relaxation centres similar to what the Americans have. We have made some efforts to do this, but on a very small scale.

As Major Miller alluded to, when people are coming back from UN missions, in a lot of cases they're in no shape to continue with their primary job or indeed to turn around, pack up, and leave on another mission three or four months later, as has been the case with many of our members. In fact, when I was in Haiti for twelve months I saw people leaving after six and then coming back after three—turning around and coming back.

My idea for rest and relaxation centres is to establish one per region—Rockies, Prairies, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic—patterned after a Journey's End type of hotel, complete with family-oriented recreation facilities, things that people go to that are not a huge distance from their home base and have subsidized use of, instead of just parking at a campground somewhere on the base—if there is one.

We used to have a thing called “deserving serviceman's flights”. At the time, Canadian Forces 707s would go on training missions to Hawaii, for example, or overseas to Europe, and they would put out a message to all supervisors saying, “If you'd care to nominate a deserving person in your staff, that person can get on this training flight and fly somewhere for free”. They could go to the same destination as the training flight, and at their expense, they stayed there and were picked up on the way back. A few years ago, some bureaucrat, for some reason, thought it was not a good idea to see Canadian Forces people flying for free in an empty aircraft, so they canned that idea.

With respect to married quarters, as a construction engineer I've seen some pretty distasteful things in terms of VIP married quarters. We have married quarters at several bases that are reserved strictly for base commanders, generals, etc. Those houses are maintained in terms of snow shovelling, routine maintenance, and lawn cutting, at government expense. I think they should be eliminated and that these general officers and senior officers should live “on the economy” and set the example for their troops.

I'd like to see a study undertaken about married quarters in general. You've no doubt heard a lot about the substandard condition of these World War II vintage houses. I would like to see a study undertaken to see if these married quarters areas can be sold or leased to a contractor and razed to the ground, with new houses installed by the contractor, who will then lease them back to DND—at rates decided by DND, not by Canada Mortgage and Housing.

In regard to military college, I'm not a military college graduate, but I sense in some of my dealings with them that they're searching for a justification to continue. One of the things that a lot of members have to do—that a lot of people in general have to do—is save for the education of their dependants. It seems to me that we could establish a dependants' education program whereby people could send their kids to military college as a university, have them attend as civilians, and graduate without any obligation for getting into the military. That could be a benefit to service personnel parents, for example.

With respect to the uniform question, I'll make this point at the risk of incurring the wrath of the good corporal supply technician over there. The Americans are issued basically two uniforms: this particular uniform or this uniform with a jacket and tie, and BDU—or battledress utility—which is the equivalent of our green combat outfit.

We are issued an initial issue of this, and from then on our $17 a month is used to buy replacement shirts or shoes or pants. The combat dress or the work dress that most of the non-commissioned ranks wear is exchanged free of charge. I would like to see uniform stores established, like those the Americans have. We would be given an initial issue of BDUs—or combats—and everything else. We would augment the monthly clothing allowance somewhat and then that member would be responsible for buying new issues of combats or BDUs or work dress.

• 1650

We waste a phenomenal amount of money exchanging uniforms. The Canadian Forces supply system treats the combat ensemble like it's gold, and there's almost a federal investigation if you lose a pair of pants, for example.

The Americans don't approach it that way. A soldier's superior will come up to him or her and say, “Your shirt is worn out. Go and buy a new one.” And he'll have to do it—at a reasonable cost.

To me, we're wasting a phenomenal amount of money with this work dress. For example, soldiers are ordered to paint something. They go in and paint it, they get paint on their uniforms and they exchange them for brand-new ones. The others are thrown out, if I'm not mistaken. That's a phenomenal waste. It should be put back on the soldiers to take of their uniforms. They could be given a little extra per month and could carry on accordingly.

Now, as for uniform stores, we're always hearing about how much of a shortage we have in supply technicians, for example. I think the clothing business should be turned over to contractors and we should have them run it as a retail store, similar to the way the Americans do. Our supply technicians could then go on to providing Canadian Forces supplies as opposed to just clothing.

There's one other point about married quarters. When I had occasion to be on a staff course in Toronto, I was told to do a service paper on some topic. I chose married quarters availability. I went to the base construction engineering officer, a major, and asked him what the married quarters on his base—in Downsview—were like. As soon as I said that, he was over the desk, screaming and yelling and ranting and running back and forth.

Apparently, at that time there were two lieutenant colonels who were married to one another and living in married quarters in Downsview, a fairly expensive town near Toronto, while his troops, corporals and sergeants, had to commute to Ajax and Oshawa for rental accommodation because there was nothing on the base for them. The two lieutenant colonels, with their combined income, were receiving the accommodation assistance allowance. To me, that is a travesty. It shouldn't be allowed to go on. That type of thing happens.

That's all I have to say.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Captain.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Ladies and gentlemen, this brings an end to the afternoon session. We will be reconvening this evening at seven o'clock and will go until 10.

I want to thank everyone for coming here and sharing their thoughts and information with us.

We'll see you tonight.