NDVA Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.))

Mr. André Marin (Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman)

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance)

Á

1120

Mr. André Marin

Miss Deborah Grey

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. André Marin

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. André Marin

Á

1125

Miss Deborah Grey

Mr. André Marin

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.)

Mr. André Marin

Á

1130

Mr. David Price

Mr. André Marin

Mr. David Price

Mr. André Marin

Mr. David Price

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. André Marin

The Chair

Mr. André Marin

Á

1135

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. André Marin

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)

Mr. André Marin

Á

1140

Mr. Robert Bertrand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Robert Bertrand

Mr. André Marin

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.)

Mr. André Marin

Á

1145

Mr. Ivan Grose

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Ivan Grose

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

Mr. André Marin

Mr. Claude Bachand

Mr. David Price

Mr. André Marin

The Chair

Mr. Claude Bachand

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Á

1150

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. André Marin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

The Chair

Mr. André Marin

Mrs. Cheryl Gallant

Mr. André Marin

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mr. André Marin

M. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

Á

1155

The Chair

Miss Deborah Grey

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

Mr. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

M. Robert Bertrand

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs

---

NUMBER 041

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 30, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs to order.

    We're very pleased to welcome someone who's been before this committee on a number of occasions, but probably not frequently enough--André Marin, who is the ombudsman for the Canadian Forces. Accompanying him today is Barbara Finlay, who is director general of investigations; as well as Mary McFadyen, acting general counsel.

    On behalf of the members of the committee I'd like to extend a warm welcome to you. You are here pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). It's a briefing session with the ombudsman.

    Welcome, Mr. Marin. We look forward to getting your comments. I'm sure some questions will follow.

    Mr. André Marin (Ombudsman, National Defence and Canadian Forces Ombudsman): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As always, it is a privilege for me to be here. I've always enjoyed appearing before the committee. I think the committee has demonstrated on many occasions genuine concern for soldiers, has intervened on important files, and has shown non-partisan unity in serving our soldiers.

    It's an honour and a privilege for me to be here to talk about an issue that perhaps does not attract attention. It appears to be a technical issue, but it really isn't. It really affects our soldiers, especially when they get injured. Considering we have 1,900 right now in operation, on patrol, expected to step into harm's way, it's an area that should be of great concern to this committee.

[Translation]

    Over the years my office have received many complaints about the Canadian Forces long-term disability insurance plan. Many of you will be familiar with retired major Bruce Henwood's long battle to change the insurance plan. He fought to have non-commission members receive the same benefits as general officers for accidental dismemberment and permanent loss of sight, hearing or speech. Earlier this year, the Minister of National Defence rectified that injustice by bringing in changes that received all party parliamentary support. The clawback of disability pensions from ill or injured former soldiers is yet another serious inequity which deserves no less attention.

    Let me begin by giving you a little background on the military long-term disability insurance plan.

    The servicemen income security insurance plan is a group insurance plan for the Canadian Forces. First and foremost, it provides Canadian Forces members with replacement income if they become totally disabled or are released from the forces.

[English]

    There are approximately 60,000 regular force members insured under the long-term disability policy. It has been automatic for those who joined after April 1, 1982. Treasury Board pays 85% of the premium and the members pay the balance. In return, those who qualify for LTD receive amounts equal to 75% of their salaries, minus other sources of income. This is where the problem begins. What are the other sources of income?

    Naturally they include what we know as income, such as the Canada Pension Plan and the Public Service Superannuation Act pension, so there's no surprise there. The problem arises in that the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, SISIP, also counts as income. It's the pension benefit soldiers receive for service-related disability. That amount is not considered under law to be income because its purpose is to compensate for the injury, so that income is not taxable. The issue that arises is why SISIP considers that to be income and deducts that amount from the long-term disability benefit. That's what has caused us to intervene on this issue.

    Before I get to an example, let me explain one difference in treatment. A soldier who has had an injury to the leg but can remain in the Canadian Forces is entitled to receive full salary and the pension disability under the Pension Act. Members who are injured in such a way that they have to leave the Canadian Forces have their pension reduced. So there's an inequity in how soldiers are treated. If you stay in, you're entitled to your full salary, of course, and you get the pension. If you have to leave, you're not entitled to your full insurance benefit. That insurance benefit is reduced by the amount of pension received for disability.

    Another inequity is that civilians who get injured but then have to leave the Canadian Forces because of a separate injury do not have their insurance amount reduced by the amount of pension benefits they receive for their disability. Let me give you an example that will illustrate this. Say a soldier receives a serious injury to his foot during a training accident. If he continues in the military he will be immediately eligible for a disability pension as compensation for his foot injury. Of course, that will not be taken off his salary. If he suffers a debilitating heart attack years later and is released from the military, the money he had previously received as compensation for his foot injury disappears because it's deducted from his LTD cheque.

    In investigating these cases we've heard from many soldiers, sailors, airmen, and airwomen who have told us they felt their insurance plan was a rip-off. Quite frankly, I understand why they feel that way. We have therefore recommended that there be changes to the SISIP long-term disability insurance policy so that Pension Act disability pensions do not reduce the amount of long-term disability benefits members receive.

    The second recommendation we've made is that there be retroactive compensation back to October 2000. That was when the plan was modified to allow members who could still serve after being injured to receive both their full salary and the disability pension amount. So that would close the gap between serving and retired members with disability pensions.

[Translation]

    I have made three recommendations to help ensure CF members to fully understand the benefits and limitations of their long-term disability insurance plan.

    It has become clear over the years, as members contact my office about their insurance plan, that many are lacking information. In some cases they do not know where to find the information they need. In others, they do not understand the information that is provided to them.

[English]

    Generally, Canadian Forces members trust that if they have to leave the forces for medical reasons their financial needs will be taken care of. When the benefits they actually receive are less than they expected, many feel they have been misinformed, or worse, betrayed. SISIP has taken several steps to improve their outreach to members, but their LTD insurance policy is not yet readily available.

    Our office tested the ability to get information by calling SISIP and posing as a member of the military trying to get information from SISIP on the contract itself, the policy. We were told that the policy was not made available to members, and that it was between Treasury Board and SISIP. So I am recommending in the report that the SISIP policy be fully available on their website and in hard-copy format. The current system is untenable. The security insurance policy for long-term disability is being treated like a state secret.

[Translation]

    I have also recommended that the Canadian Forces take on some of the responsibility to inform its members on a regular basis about the benefits and limitations of their extended disability insurance coverage. This information should be conveyed routinely, even to healthy CF members, so that no one has to try to decipher an insurance policy during a time of crisis.

[English]

    It's important that soldiers who go on deployment, go in harm's way, realize what the limits are of their insurance policy. They only find that out now if they get injured and make claims. Then they realize that for all those years they had the false expectation that they would be covered fully.

    As I have said, Minister McCallum has agreed with the findings of the report and the five recommendations. I expect to see swift action on their implementation so that former Canadian Forces members who suffer from debilitating illnesses and injuries are treated with the fairness and dignity they deserve.

    Subject to your questions, members and honourable chair, that is my opening statement.

Á  (1115)  

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Marin.

    Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Can I make a point of order?

    The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: I'll like to know, Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Marin is here today in the context of our Canada-America study, if it's a request we made to him or if you asked the ombudsman to come here today.

[English]

    The Chair: The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2). I mentioned that at the beginning of the meeting. This is not in connection with Canada-U.S. relations. This is a request that was made, I believe, by Mr. Marin and his office to provide us with a briefing on an issue that many members of the committee are very interested in, based upon some of our previous involvement on this issue and on quality-of-life issues for members of the Canadian Forces. I just want us to be clear on that.

    Do we have a question from the Alliance?

    Ms. Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, David.

    Thank you, again, André. It's good to see you again. We just appreciate the work you do.

    You know that I come from a large military area in Edmonton. There's a great presence there. It just seems hard to believe in this day and age that you can't get the stuff, as you referred to it. It's like a state secret. If this is what people are paying into for benefits, then surely to heaven they should be able to find out just what coverage they have.

    I agree with you that many of these people are just completely stunned when they are injured and have to claim for benefits. Then they find out it's nothing but surprises, and most of them sad surprises.

    I know also that the Bruce Henwood case spawned a lot of this. I know he raised concerns after his injury about the financial stress on his whole family. Many of these people are young, single, and idealistic when they go into the forces, and then all of a sudden their lives change and they're married with children and have huge responsibilities--counselling services, all those kinds of things that factor into real life.

    Obviously I haven't had a chance to read the whole report yet, but you are certainly intimately familiar with it. Have those issues been addressed in it, and if so, how?

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. André Marin: There is a tremendous deal of deception, which we've documented in the report and in our findings. You're quite right they're the most acutely aware of the limitations of the program when injury strikes.

    We believe that transparency and openness in this policy would allow people to take precautions and better deal with the situation as informed people. If you look at an analogy from the civilian world, if you built a $100,000 house, insured it for $100,000, and then it burned down and the insurance company said, “Well, you make $50,000, so we're only going to write you a cheque for $50,000.” that's what the current plan amounts to.

    As you point out, when they have dependents, obligations, and support, that's when they realize that the plan isn't what it's billed as.

    Miss Deborah Grey: There are probably lots of people in California feeling that way this morning too, I'm sure. You never read the fine print of your insurance policy until you need it. I think your recommendation here is just excellent, so they can get their hands on that, read it, and just know ahead of time what the coverage is.

    In your previous reports on operational stress injuries you mentioned the difficulty of injured members obtaining occupational transfers. So here we see again people who are idealistic, like to work hard serving our country, yet they're coming up against blocks all the time--that's b-l-o-c-k-s.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    An hon. member: Thanks for the precision.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Certainly.

    So they want to get transfers. I'm dealing with a young fellow right now who is having great difficulty because he's at one end of the country and his daughter is at the other. That just creates all kinds of personal stress, but also operational stress, because you're not as effective when you're under that kind of stress.

    If that still persists, what impact does it have on their experiences with programs like SISIP when they're going through their personal problems?

    Mr. André Marin: It creates a lot of disillusionment. The Canadian Forces have issues of recruiting, morale, and retention. When something like this hits home it becomes, in their mind, a self-fulfilling prophesy.

    One of the corporate objectives of National Defence this year is to take care of soldiers. It's the first point mentioned on CDS's website. When these inequities are there soldiers think, “How can they care if this is how I'm going to get treated?” To be fair, the department and the minister have been very supportive of reform in this area, so we're hoping to see this fixed.

    If you're looking at analogies for the developments that are happening now, I think the LTD coverage has been provided since 1982. It's pretty much a relic of the Cold War. We've evolved as a military. We're trying to make sure we are well equipped, modern, and so on. I think we have to keep modernizing our approach to human resources, and we need to do away with this relic of the Cold War.

    Miss Deborah Grey: It's kind of interesting that you mention relic, because 1982 was 20 years ago, and the Sea Kings had already been in operation for 20 years by then. So talking about 1982 as ancient history is phenomenal.

    The inequities and the discrepancies between soldiers and civilians are just remarkable. We talk about the pride people come into the forces with and try to continue. I know people who've been in the forces for many years and are still doing their darndest to try to still be just as proud of their uniform and everything else. But when you see this kind of inequity, it must just rip you right up.

    Mr. André Marin: Absolutely. The amount of risk, of course, that members of the military are exposed to compared with civilians is incalculable. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, I'll be visiting 1,900 soldiers next week. These people are in a heavily mined area, and the danger is immense. We should be doing better. We should be covering these people in a much better way and fixing the problems with this LTD.

    I've had a number of discussions with people from DND and its forces about this report in the last week. Although they're very supportive of the report and the recommendations, they're looking at a steering committee to look at all types of reforms. But we're pushing for reform in this area right now because we feel this is eminently fixable. We are very concerned that this will be studied to death, will languish in a committee, and will ultimately get buried with other issues, while we have people who are suffering because of the inequity in LTD.

    I don't doubt for one second the commitment of National Defence, Canadian Forces, and the minister, but I think we need to create some momentum so this can be fixed. Other things that are less pressing can have their day in court, but this is eminently fixable, there is political support, and there is support from the high ranks of the Canadian Forces, so let's move ahead and fix it.

Á  (1125)  

    Miss Deborah Grey: You're here talking to the committee that has the power to make these recommendations. So if we agree, the minister has agreed, and the CDS has agreed, why the flip can't we just get this done before sundown? It seems to me that's easy. It sounds a little simplistic I guess, but if we all agree and this needs to be done, let's get at it.

    Nellie McClung, one of the Famous 5 from Alberta, whose statue is out here somewhere said, “Never retreat, never explain, never apologize—get the thing done and let them howl”. So let's get at it.

    Mr. André Marin: Your point is certainly well taken. The minister's efficiency committee last week released a report trying to determine how to make National Defence and the Canadian Forces more efficient. One of the report's main points was on top-down leadership, as opposed to bottom-up leadership. Certainly we have, in this case, the top-down leadership we've sought, so there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to move forward on this.

    Miss Deborah Grey: We wish you well on your trip. Are you well covered for next week? Check it out. We wish you a safe trip.

    The Chair: Mr. Price.

    Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you, Mr. Marin, for coming and exposing this report to us. Unfortunately, as the member opposite said, we haven't had a chance to go through the whole thing. I've probably gone through about 50% of it. I've certainly looked at the recommendations and I find them excellent. I have just one “widdle ick” with them, and that's the last one that “All CF bases, wings and formations appoint an officer to act as a resource person”.

    There are two people now doing that job. There's the SISIP person, who tends to be more in sales, so I agree that's probably the wrong person to be giving advice. But there are a couple of questions here. If one person were designated to do just that, would there be enough work for them? Secondly would it have to be an officer? Could it not be a civilian?

    Going a little further than that, what do we do to support our reserves people? As we know, in the past they have come back from deployments and have run into all kinds of problems. They're back in their own units that are nowhere near any base, and they don't have the support. So how do we handle that part of it?

    Mr. André Marin: I think your question is excellent, because it allows me to emphasize the important point that we're not advocating to create a bureaucracy to deal with SISIP. We just want someone who's knowledgeable and can answer the questions. So when we say “an officer”, we're not contemplating the creation of a full-time job. We're talking about somebody who knows the provisions of SISIP inside out, who you know you can call to get reliable information.

    In my discussions with Bruce Henwood, he often mentioned to me that no one knew what they were talking about. We see that's a symptom here. So we just mean it should be someone they know they can approach to get answers to their questions. That person should be able to answer questions for the reserves as well.

    In my discussions with senior officials at National Defence, they were also contemplating creating a sort of 1-800 line in Ottawa to answer questions on SISIP and LTD. So that would answer your question about the reserves.

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. David Price: That would good as long as there were a person at the end of that line and not a machine.

    Mr. André Marin: Yes, it should be a person who knows those provisions inside out.

    Mr. David Price: Okay, that's all I had. I think the rest is great.

    Congratulations on this other document I received this morning. I think it's excellent, because we need to know what's happened in your office over the past five years. It was a completely new office, and we didn't know in the beginning just what direction would be taken. You basically set up the whole operation, and I'm sure you had to make many adjustments in its direction along the way.

    This gives us a lot of information. I haven't had a chance to really study the whole thing. I did notice there wasn't any separate breakdown in a lot of these things for the reserves themselves. That might be interesting. I don't know if you've gone that far on it. As far as the report goes there's a lot of information. It's quite interesting and I'm looking forward to getting deeper into it.

    Mr. André Marin: Thanks very much. We have a case management system that allows us to track all types of different things that may not be evident this morning. But we'd be pleased to provide you with information on the reserves, if that's what you would like. We'll take note of that and make sure we follow up with you.

    Mr. David Price: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Price.

    Thank you, Mr. Marin.

    Mr. Bachand.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Sauvageau will be taking the first round.

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Mr. Marin, ladies, good morning.

    Mr. Marin, I'm looking at your terms of reference and if my interpretation is correct, I'll have questions for you. Otherwise, they won't be relevant.

    In 3(1)(c), of your terms of reference, it says that you may:

(c) serve to contribute to substantial and long lasting improvements in the welfare of employees and members of the DND and CF communities...

    In paragraph 4(b), it states:

(b) may ... on the ombudsman's own motion... investigate any matter concerning the DND [...]

    Would I be correct in saying that the Official Languages Act can contribute to substantially improve the well-being of employees and military personnel?

    Mr. André Marin: Yes.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I now have a question for you on official languages.

    Mr. André Marin: When dealing with matters that concern a specialized agency such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Official Languages Commission, we call on them because of their unique expertise and the fact that they have that specific responsibility.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: However, I do know that you did not submit the Moose Jaw grade school case to any agency. They even went so far as to declare a highway to be a school zone in order not to have any school on the Moose Jaw Canadian forces base. They chose instead to send the children to grade school in Saskatoon, a one-hour bus ride away from the base. That situation was not investigated.

    Nor was there any investigation about the fact that F-18 pilot training, even in unilingual francophone work units is available in English only. However, I won't put any questions to you on that.

    Besides, without any chance of making a mistake here I can state that in your services some accountants, lawyers or F-18 pilots have not completed their training or don't meet hiring standards.

    Could you tell us why you have decided to accept the fact that at National Defence only 52.6% of all officers in bilingual positions meet their hiring requirements and that only 32.5% of non-commissioned members in bilingual positions meet hiring requirements? If it's important to be an accountant in order to hold an accountant's position and to be an F-18 pilot to fly an F-18, then why don't you have to be bilingual to hold a bilingual position?

    Mr. André Marin: As I am not part of the chain of command, those decisions and those acts don't come under my purview.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Respecting the rights of Canadian Armed Forces personnel thus contributing to improve their living conditions and their well-being is not part of your terms of reference?

    Mr. André Marin: What's in my mandate...

[English]

    The Chair: Mr. Sauvageau, if Mr. Marin could have an opportunity to answer the questions I think that would be helpful.

[Translation]

    Mr. André Marin: According to my terms of reference, I do receive certain complaints concerning those matters you have raised. However, Mr. chairman, as I explained at the beginning, in matters of official languages we send those complaints to the official languages commissioner who has a specific mandate to see to those matters. I regularly communicate with the commissioners. I actually discussed another problem with the Official languages commissioner yesterday.

    However, if Mr. Sauvageau wishes us to deal with certain specific matters, I would be pleased to have another look at them and, if need be, refer them to Ms. Adam.

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Before giving the floor to my colleague, I would like to point out that 70% of positions designated bilingual are not held by bilingual staff and that deserves your attention. I am not talking here about one member of the armed forces in a specific geographic area, I am talking about a systemic problem within the armed forces. On that, I will...

    Mr. André Marin: I would like to make a comment on that. Mr. Chairman, we try to avoid duplication of both efforts and resources. Besides, Ms. Adam told me yesterday—and I don't want to betray her confidence here—that she was looking at official languages matters involving the Department of National Defence.

    Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: It's not a secret, it's already in the newspapers.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: If I have any time left, Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue.

    However, the matter of harassment certainly falls under your purview.

    Mr. André Marin: Yes.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: In the Canadian army, there are many cases of harassment based on the fact that people are francophones. It's a major problem. In some cases, they are not even allowed to meet with their career manager to talk about their problems. Those members are deprived of the means they need.

    Of course, Ms. Adam has a role to play as you do. The fact remains that when a member of the military is refused access to his career manager and that, as a means of reprisal, because he is francophone and he is not liked, he is assigned to k.p. duty while he is already affected by the situation, then there is a problem. If we were to send you several clear examples of harassment against French-speaking people, especially in the West, would you be in a position to deal with that kind of complaints?

    Mr. André Marin: Absolutely. The way you've described the problem, this is more a matter of harassment than a matter concerning the implementation of the Official Languages Act. So, if that were the case, of course we would be ready to hear it.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: If I'm not mistaken, both for what you've told us about the long-term insurance disability and the harassment matter we're discussing, people have to go through the grievance procedure before going to see you?

    Mr. André Marin: Except for exceptional cases, yes.

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Has anyone gone through the grievance procedure in the case you were describing this morning about long-term insurance disability? Have any adjudicative tribunals heard those cases and handed down a decision so far?

    Mr. André Marin: I would first like to consult my general director of operations.

    Having consulted my general director of operations and if memory serves, the answer is no.

    The reason those kinds of problems would not have gone before a grievance committee or tribunal is simply that those committees deal with individual cases, not systemic matters.

    We deal with individual cases and also with systemic matters. Our approach here was to gather together the 50 or so complaints we were sent and examine the systemic aspect of the insurance plan rather than get involved in an individual investigation.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you.

    Monsieur Bertrand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have only a few questions about fringe benefits.

    You mentioned that your office intervened several times in the matter of disability benefits for members of the Canadian Forces.

    What was the result? Did you win 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent of these cases?

    Mr. André Marin: We gathered the complaints together. They were systemic in the sense that as long as the policy doesn't change, we won't be able to help those people. That's why in the report we recommend a change in policy to enable us to settle the individual cases. As long as the policy remains unchanged, we won't be able to help those people.

Á  (1140)  

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: In the statement you made, I noticed that almost all the complaints come from the army if we compare the three branches: army, 62 per cent, air force, 24 per cent and navy, 14 per cent.

    Why are there so many complaints from the army?

    Mr. André Marin: I'm often asked that question. I'm not saying I have any scientific answer, but as the ombudsman, allow me to say what I think about that.

    First of all, the army is the part of the armed forces where you have most people.

    Second, the army is where you have the highest number of non-commissioned officers, in other words, those people who, in a way, are most vulnerable.

    Third, I'm often told that the army has a far harder culture than the air force, for example.

    If I were to add a fourth point, I'd mention the contribution abroad, international missions that the army has participated in like the one in Afghanistan. You sleep in tents and are exposed to far-harsher and more difficult situations than the air force, for example, whose members are living on a ship where there's more comfort than the military personnel in Kabul have.

    For those four reasons, I think there are more problems with the army.

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: I have a last question, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

    On the last page of your statement, concerning the number of decreasing complaints, if we look at the military justice side, we can see that there was an increase in complaints in 1999-2000.

    Any idea why?

    Mr. André Marin: There again, we often discussed this, but not on a scientific basis. We came to the conclusion that when our office opened, in June 1998, some people had great expectations that we would intervene in issues of military justice. But in many cases, we are limited by our mandate. For instance, we do not have a mandate to investigate injustice in martial court if it involves the JAG. This is why the number of cases went down after 1999. People now realize that there are limits imposed on us when dealing with issues of military justice. This does not mean that the problems have been solved through military justice, but that people have realized that the mandate cannot deal with quite a few military justice issues.

[English]

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bertrand.

    Does the opposition have any questions?

    Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, I would like us to make a unanimous report, something like what we did for the veterans. I think that it is time to solve this problem. If the committee can contribute anything to the solution, it will be welcome.

    Do you want to have a formal motion?

[English]

    The Chair: I don't know if we have any other speakers on this side who have questions.

    Mr. Grose.

    Mr. Ivan Grose (Oshawa, Lib.): I notice that a member or former member of the cadets may contact the office of the ombudsman. Are you referring to cadets in military colleges, or are you referring to the cadets we have in the community--the young people aged 13 to 19? I realize their officers are on the C list, so there's no question there. Are these the cadets you're referring to?

    Mr. André Marin: It means the cadet movement, for youth aged 12 to 18.

Á  (1145)  

    Mr. Ivan Grose: That's good because we're running into the odd case--one is too many--of sexual interference. That's something you would be interested in.

    Mr. André Marin: Yes.

    Mr. Ivan Grose: Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Mr. Bertrand, do you have any other questions?

[Translation]

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: I would like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. Would the motion mentioned by the opposition deal strictly with the sole issue of disability insurance?

    Mr. André Marin: I do not know what is being moved, but...

    Mr. Claude Bachand: It is about a study of the report. We have seen that some people want to change some things. Up to now, everyone seems to agree that they should be corrected, but they have not been corrected. Something like what we did for the veterans, where everyone agreed that it was unacceptable to leave 23,000 of them without benefits; we could ask the chairman to table a unanimous report in the House; this would simply add some pressure.

[English]

    Mr. David Price: There's just one little interpretation that I mentioned at the beginning. In recommendation 5 on the appointment of an officer, could it be an officer or a civilian?

    Mr. André Marin: When we make recommendations we ask the military how best to implement the spirit of them, so we're very flexible on this. The point is we need to have a resource person who knows what they're talking about.

    The Chair: Obviously this committee does its business by motion and we need a motion, but the problem is we don't have a quorum for the passage of a motion. I don't know if we want to deal with it at this meeting or as the first item of business at the next meeting. There's general agreement on how to proceed, and it's six of one and half a dozen of the other, quite frankly, according to the rules. I think we all agree we have to abide by the rules, but we just don't have the quorum to do it right now.

    If someone wants to circulate a motion, we can have a look at it and deal with it at the next meeting.

[Translation]

    Mr. Claude Bachand: Would this be the first item on the next meeting's agenda, so that we can get it done while we still have a quorum?

[English]

    The Chair: I don't see why not. The general view here is that this has to be done.

    Miss Deborah Grey: How many more do we need for quorum?

    The Chair: We need ten members for quorum. We're a few bricks short of a full load here.

    Miss Deborah Grey: As long as this motion doesn't fall into some great abyss.... It seems evident that some of members who should have been here for quorum--

    The Chair: That cuts both ways.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Well, we're here.

    The Chair: I'm sorry. Before we go, Ms. Gallant has a question. Maybe we could get that on the floor, Mr. Bertrand, and deal with it.

    Ms. Gallant, you have the floor.

Á  (1150)  

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you very much for indulging me. I was just in Centre Block with two grade five classes from Our Lady of Lourdes. Several of those children have parents who are serving overseas in Afghanistan, others who are in Bosnia, and some who are still on the base at home. It is on behalf of the soldiers and the children of their families that I ask this question.

    On accidental dismemberment, I understand it applies to accidents that occur operationally. The shortcoming that is being addressed right now on behalf of the soldiers is the fact that they would like to see that aspect of the insurance apply 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and not be restricted to operational duties.

    Is this something you would be willing to recommend to the defence minister?

    Mr. André Marin: It's certainly a matter I'm sympathetic to, but I think I need to study it further, look at the provisions, and so on. I'll certainly take it under advisement, and will communicate back to your office, Ms. Gallant.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Thank you.

    The Chair: On that point, perhaps you could send a response to me, Mr. Marin, and I will circulate it to members of committee.

    Mr. André Marin: Thank you.

    Mrs. Cheryl Gallant: Finally, since the deployment to Afghanistan there has been, as you're well aware, a recognized increased threat level. We have military personnel over there who really didn't understand how dangerous this mission would be, even though SISIP went to extraordinary measures during DAGing--the departure assistance group preparations--to ensure they were all briefed on insurance coverage.

    It's my understanding that currently, if someone decides they want to purchase additional insurance after all, they have to go through a courier or e-mail. The problem in going through the medical conditions in the questionnaire is that even though the applicant is trying to be very honest, they don't always understand the nature of the question or the definitions, and they want to be sure to declare everything.

    If they don't get that one-on-one contact with an insurance representative to explain this, we could again have a situation where the covered personnel didn't necessarily qualify because of a previous exclusion. Also, the nature of the information that has to be given on behalf of the applicant is very sensitive. That kind of information shouldn't be zipping back across the Internet.

    So if a SISIP representative were willing to go to Afghanistan to ensure that everyone who needed or wanted additional coverage could get the one-on-one service, would you be willing, through the chair, to make that recommendation to the defence department?

    Mr. André Marin: Without any further reflection, if our fifth recommendation were adopted, by and large that would deal with the issues raised. We'd have one resource person able to provide advice and information, and perhaps be a conduit to SISIP. So that would be addressed in large part by the adoption of the fifth recommendation.

    One of the points we made in the report was that the policy has to be made available. It's not available. One of the points that's perhaps not mentioned in the report but may be very relevant for members to be aware of is that policy

[Translation]

    not only was it not made available to members of the armed forces, but it has never been translated into French. Thus, we say in the report that the policy adopted in 1982 should be available and that it should be translated into French. Thus, there is a great deal of work to be done on this.

[English]

    But the implementation of the fifth recommendation would address the issue the member has raised.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Monsieur Marin.

    Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey: I have a motion here. Should I give it a whirl?

    The Chair: Just put the brakes on that for a second, and we'll go to Mr. Bertrand.

    Mr. André Marin: Which company is involved?

    M. Robert Bertrand: Maritime Life.

    The Chair: It's probably safe to say that M. Bertrand is our insurance expert on this committee, based on a previous life.

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: It never leaves you.

    The Chair: Miss Grey.

    Miss Deborah Grey: Thank you. Being an English teacher never leaves you either.

    I just tossed something together here as a motion. I think all the words are spelled correctly, but I'm just interested in throwing this on the table as a motion. It reads:

that SCONDVA accept the report of the Ombudsman on “Unfair Deductions from SISIP Payments to Former CF Members”, October 30, 2003, and that we implore the Defence Minister and government to accept and enact the recommendations forthwith.

Á  (1155)  

    The Chair: That sounds like a reasonable motion to me.

    Miss Deborah Grey: I'd be happy to have anybody second that motion.

    The Chair: As I said, we can't deal with that at this point, Miss Grey. We'll take it as notice at this point and get a transcript of this meeting. Maybe you can provide a copy to the clerk. I don't expect there'll be any problems with it procedurally, but we'll have the clerk give it a once-over and then bring it back to us at our next meeting.

    Monsieur Bertrand.

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: Do we still have an office for quality of life at DND?

    The Chair: I believe so.

    Mr. Robert Bertrand: I think it's important that they also get a copy of that motion.

    The Chair: We'll do that once it's passed. It will be in the public domain at that point. You'd be surprised, M. Bertrand, at the attention given by the department to some of our activities.

    M. Robert Bertrand: I can well imagine.

    The Chair: With that, Monsieur Marin, I would like to once again thank you for being here. I think it's been a productive session. On behalf of the committee, I'd like to thank your colleagues as well for being here to provide information.

    I would ask members to just spend less than five minutes on committee business, in camera, on the possible trip to the United States with respect to our Canada-U.S. defence relations study. It won't take long to deal with.

    Again, Monsieur Marin, thank you very much. We look forward to your next visit.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]