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, April 23, 1998

• 0908

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. Before we get to Mr. Jamieson this morning, we just have a few little housekeeping duties to take care of.

Last night at the steering committee, regarding Bill C-25, we agreed on some witnesses. A few of them caused a few problems, so we decided to vote on them. I will name the four: Mr. Bob Fowler, Kim Campbell, Marcel Masse, and a base commander Mr. Hanger had mentioned, Colonel Mitchell from base Petawawa, I believe.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Colonel Mitchell, or it could be the base commander at—

The Chairman: Edmonton?

Mr. Art Hanger: Gagetown.

The Chairman: Gagetown, okay.

Mr. Art Hanger: I have a point of order. The list preceding these four we discussed yesterday, have you brought them forward at all yet?

The Chairman: No, we had agreed on them. We don't need to vote on them. Everybody agreed on them.

Mr. Art Hanger: Those are the seven who were initially outlined?

The Chairman: I can read them out loud.

Mr. Art Hanger: If you would, please.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Six were yours.

The Chairman: They are Professor Doug Bland, Peter Desbarats, Brian Dickson, le Barreau du Québec, Brian Grainger, and Jack Granatstein.

Mr. Art Hanger: And number seven of those?

The Chairman: Admiral Murray, but Mr. Richardson took him off.

[Translation]

He withdrew it.

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay, so Vice-Admiral Murray is not on the list, then.

The Chairman: That's right.

Mr. Art Hanger: All right.

• 0910

The Chairman: Now, in order to be expedient, what I would suggest is that instead of voting name by name, we can just group them.

Mr. Art Hanger: On another point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't quite agree with that. I think we should go down one by one.

The Chairman: One by one?

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to go one by one on this particular group.

The Chairman: Okay. So it's agreed.

We'll go to the first one, Mr. Bob Fowler. I believe, Mr. Proud, you wanted a recorded vote.

Mr. George Proud: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): When these names are being proposed, if there's something specific about why we're being requested to hear the witness, it might be helpful for us to vote.

The Chairman: Mr. Price was the one who mentioned the names. Maybe he can give you his reasons for suggesting those names.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Okay. It's because at the beginning of the Somalia inquiry Mr. Fowler was very involved, and this whole Bill C-25 really comes out of the Somalia inquiry, so that's the reason I suggested both Mr. Fowler and Kim Campbell.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Mr. Chairman, the reason that—I'll make no bones about it—I'll be voting against three of these names is I don't believe we need to bring up the Somalia inquiry again. I think these people we're talking about here would have very little to do with military justice, which is what we're supposed to be dealing with in Bill C-25. Probably because of them, I would say, this bill is coming forward. So that's why I'll be voting against them.

The Chairman: Okay. The question is will Mr. Fowler be invited?

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

The Chairman: Will Ms. Kim Campbell be invited? Is there any debate? We don't have to debate each one; they're all the same reasons.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 2)

[Translation]

The Chairman: Was Mr. Marcel Masse invited?

[English]

Mr. Art Hanger: Would it be advisable to hear from Mr. Lebel on this particular individual, since he is the one who put his name forward? I would like to hear why Mr. Lebel would want Mr. Masse here.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): I wanted Mr. Marcel Masse to come because he is a former Minister of Defence. I also wanted to ask him about career plans for individuals who believe that their progress is blocked. As a francophone, it is easier for me to understand the explanations of someone who has the relevant experience and, in addition is a Francophone. That is why I suggested his name.

However, I realize that this was a mistake, because as soon as we, in the opposition, suggest a name, it is automatically rejected. So, I won't insist on it. I am not prepared to fight for this.

The Chairman: Mr. Lebel, just to set the record straight, I would like to point out that you suggested the Quebec Bar, and it was accepted.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yes, the Quebec Bar.

The Chairman: It was, after all, your party who suggested it.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yes, it was my party who suggested it, I won't pursue the matter.

• 0915

The Chairman: All right. Are there any other comments on inviting Mr. Masse? Let's have the vote.

[English]

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The Chairman: The fourth one is to invite a base commander. We've had a couple of names, but maybe we'll just leave it open and say “base commander”.

Are there any comments? Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, the reason I feel this is important is that, under the existing system, the base commander has control over the involvement of military police investigations, or may even request it to some degree. There seems to be an underlying concern amongst some of those commanders about losing a certain amount of control that may be very essential to the efficient operation of the base. With the way the bases are growing, I would like to see some of that input from those working right in the field at the present time. I believe we should be looking at a base commander who has some experience—in other words, time on a base at present—and who has analysed these changes in terms of how they're going to impact directly on their authority.

The Chairman: Mr. O'Brien.

Mr. Pat O'Brien (London—Fanshawe, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear if there is anybody with a contrary view. Frankly, I'm only a “sometimes” member on this committee because there are two others that I sit on and that are meeting right now. I hope it's understood that although I'm not a regular attendee at this one, it's because of two other committees that usually quite often meet at the same time. Because of that, I have some sympathy for the argument I have just heard. Unless there are some contrary views, I would likely support it.

The Chairman: Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with this. I think it's a good idea. As I said earlier, when I was opposed because the other names were brought forward, I think what we're trying to do with this bill is set up a new justice system. If these people can shine some very much-needed light on this thing, I think we should have base commanders in.

The Chairman: Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't have a problem with it either. I just wonder if we shouldn't make sure it's a base commander from a large, good-sized base where there might be a lot of problems—Petawawa or Gagetown, as somebody has suggested, or maybe Edmonton. It should be one of those, not something that's small.

Mr. Art Hanger:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...base we were at was Petawawa. Colonel Mitchell would be an ideal man.

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, he'd be ideal. I think we should try to get Mitchell first.

The Chairman: Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): I share the sentiments of my colleagues, and I would also propose the name of Colonel Gregory Mitchell.

The Chairman: Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I have no problem with Greg Mitchell, but I'm wondering if it might also be helpful to hear from someone naval and someone from air. Are there different problems in each arm?

An hon. member: Well, they're all base commanders.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I know, but I think some of the problems are different. It's just something I was throwing out.

Mr. Art Hanger: Well, that's what we're looking for, but I would—

Mr. George Proud: I would hope we would hear a cross-section of the navy, army and air force throughout the hearings. We likely will.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: If we don't, perhaps we could hold that in reserve. If we don't seem to get a cross-section, we could then invite someone from naval or from air.

Mr. George Proud: It seems there's agreement on that.

The Chairman: Okay, and there also seems to be agreement on calling a base commander. Mr. Proud, do you wish a recorded vote on this one?

Mr. George Proud: No, that's fine.

The Chairman: Then it's unanimous.

(Motion agreed to)

Mr. David Price: If we're finished with that one, last night I did forget the name of one person we have talked to. I would like to propose Colonel Drapeau. He has been quite outspoken on many items, and he has testified before.

The Chairman: Just hang on a minute here, and we'll put down his name. We have a last name, Colonel Drapeau. Is there any discussion on this new witness? Mr. Clouthier.

• 0920

Mr. Hec Clouthier: What's the rationale behind this, please?

Mr. David Price: He was a witness before Chief Justice Dickson's commission. As we know, he's rather outspoken on the subject. It's maybe a good time to question him on a lot of the things he talks about.

The Chairman: I presume we'll want a recorded vote on this one.

(Motion negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)

The Chairman: Thank you very much, colleagues. We will now go to our witness who is here this morning, Mr. Jamieson.

Please proceed with your presentation, sir.

Mr. Jim Jamieson (Director, Military Family Support, Canadian Forces Personnel Support Agency): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this briefing is to provide you with an overview of support services given to families of Canadian Forces members before, during and after operational deployments.

In general, the type and level of services that are provided vary according to the size of the CF support facility, the numbers of individuals deployed from a given location, and the proximity of the family to the location in question. However, as I will describe, there is a minimum standard of service that every family of a deployed CF member can and should expect.

[Translation]

There are three groups with a primary responsibility to serve the families of deployed CF members, namely; the rear party of a major unit being deployed; the base or wing staff from the CF location responsible for the deployed member or members; and the Military Family Support Program, which operates primarily through Military Family Support Resource Centres (MFRCs) at the great majority of CF locations as well as through an important service called the Mission Information Line (MIL).

[English]

First of all, on the rear party—and there's a copy of an overhead given to you that summarizes the five points I'm going to make—whenever a major deployment occurs involving one or more units, ships or squadrons, each of those involved would normally form a rear party. While “rear party” is essentially an army term, I will use it along with the term “unit” and “base” to cover all elements.

Essentially, the rear party serves five key functions in supporting families, often in concert with other base staff and the military family resource centre.

Firstly, a rear party organizes and provides briefings to families before the deployment and, if required, during and near the end of the deployment. Often the briefing near the end of the deployment, or reunion briefing, is organized by the military family resource centre. Pre-deployment briefings and handouts cover a wide range of subjects, from the purpose of the mission to mail delivery and financial entitlements. As well, the staff and agencies available to support families during the deployment make presentations on the services offered by each.

Secondly, a rear party provides formal and informal communication links for families with deployed members. This is done through services ranging from military messages, to mail, telephone lines and, more and more often, the Internet.

Thirdly, the rear party provides direct or indirect assistance to families during the deployment. For the most part, this assistance is always available in emergencies and it is available to varying degrees for more predictable situations. I'm referring here to everything from medical emergencies to snow clearing after a major storm, to leave travel arrangements for the spouse when applicable.

• 0925

Fourthly, rear parties provide a variety of written information to families to prepare them for deployments and for the reunion phase. The rear party may do this through information it produces itself or through materials produced by others, such as military social workers and the military family support staff and so on, on topics such as dealing with the normal but difficult emotional cycle of deployments.

Mr. Chairman, you were provided with some of these materials, such as “Preparing for Deployment Stress”, “Preparing for Critical Incident Stress” and “Preparing for Reunion Stress”, which are widely used with our people.

Finally, the rear party serves as a major point of contact to connect and support spouses in dealing with services available to them on base and off base. More will be said about these services in a minute.

[Translation]

Before leaving this overview of rear party functions in serving families, I wish to make one further point. In many cases, the spouses of deployed CF members from a particular unit will form a more or less structured support group. This informal support group is usually based on the unwritten expectation that the spouses (ie. wives) of senior unit officers will form, lead and sustain the support group. There can be no doubt that in some cases this is of great value, particularly when the unit is involved in a highly stressful situation. It should be noted, however, that the function of forming support groups is now undertaken normally by the Military Family Resource Centre.

[English]

Base or wing staff: As suggested earlier, one of the functions of rear parties is to connect families with services offered by the base, particularly when the family member is unsure of whom to turn to or is need of support to deal with an unfamiliar structure. In many cases, the spouse will of course deal directly with the base.

Additionally, there are numerous instances in which there is no formed rear party applicable to the situation, such as is the case with the families of the United Nations military observers. When there is no rear party, the role of the base staff can become greatly magnified.

Base services consist of those that are tangible, such as pay and housing, and those that are less tangible, such as social work and chaplaincy services. All of these services are normally involved in pre-deployment briefings and all provide support during the deployment period.

In addition to screening CF members for deployment suitability, social work officers and chaplains, together with military family resource centres, have taken on a key leadership role in assisting families with both predictable reunion difficulties and the special problems precipitated by the trauma our members may have experienced or witnessed during deployments. Preparing for and dealing with reunion takes place through educational briefings, support groups, written handouts and individual or family counselling.

Finally, there is the military family support program. As you will be receiving a separate briefing on the military family support program, I will not enter into details of the program, except to say that the military family support program operates primarily through military family resource centres at most CF locations.

The program was started formally in 1991 in response to a number of concerns expressed by spouses. It is primarily a preventive and supportive service and operates on the community development model. Each MFRC is an incorporated body governed by a board of directors of which the civilian spouses of CF members must form the majority.

• 0930

The board works in partnership with the base or wing commander to serve CF families in the local area. Through professional staff who manage the MFRC, the centre offers a range of services primarily related to the lifestyle concerns created by the Canadian Forces way of life.

One of the chief concerns is, of course, deployment support. Prior to deployments, MFRCs become involved in briefings provided by rear parties or take the lead in organizing such briefings. The MFRC is often the best location to hold such briefings, as it can provide child care and a welcoming environment.

Typically, the MFRC provides information on services offered by itself and by other organizations specifically for families of those deployed. A family handbook developed by staff here in Ottawa is provided, as is an offer to provide the regular MFRC newsletter listing programs, services, and other useful information.

A copy of the handbook mentioned, Mr. Chairman, was also given, I believe, to each member.

I should also mention that we're in the process of producing a best practices booklet for each MFRC on how to best support families during deployments. I believe a copy of this was given to each member, but I'm not positive.

[Translation]

The bases or units are responsible for providing MFRCs with the names and phone numbers of spouses of deployed members so that during the early part of a deployment the MFRCs staff or trained volunteers can communicate directly with each spouse. This means basically contacting them to ensure that each is aware of services, is placed on the mailing list of events being offered and, if desired, receives a "warm line" call from the same person at the MFRC on a regular basis, usually once a week.

[English]

During the deployment itself, particularly during major deployments, the MFRC offers special services and events focused on the needs and wishes of the families. These services include the formation of support groups as desired and required.

The MFRC also assists spouses in dealing with ongoing concerns or emergencies of any sort. While a rear party may also perform some of these functions, you will recognize that some spouses feel more comfortable in dealing with the MFRC. In part, this may be because of a perception that bringing concerns to the unit may impact negatively on the member's career. On the whole, however, the roles of the rear party and the MFRC are complementary in dealing with both tangible and psychosocial concerns.

As alluded to earlier, MFRCs are increasingly involved in organizing reunion briefings for spouses just prior to the end of a deployment. In addition to reviewing the normal but difficult adjustments which frequently occur after a long separation, these reunion briefings sensitize spouses on how to recognize and deal with signs of post-traumatic stress.

Last, let me emphasize one further service. The mission information line is a toll-free telephone service available to all families of deployed members. It offers timely and accurate unclassified information on each CF mission. The information available is contained on frequently updated voice mailboxes, and many of these contain direct information from in-theatre commanders at all levels, updated at least weekly. Live contact with two staff members who operate the line is also available for nine hours a day and for longer periods during times of particular tension.

• 0935

[Translation]

The MIL is well used by spouses, children, parents and friends of CF members, particularly those who are remote from CF bases, wings or MFRCs. In one 12-month period over 120,000 contacts were made with the MIL and on one particular day there were over 1500 calls with 200 of these requiring direct contact with line staff. In the past 12 months, the MIL has received 80,000 calls.

[English]

This concludes my brief overview on current supports offered to families of deployed members. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We now go to question period. Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Jamieson, I'm curious about a couple of points you raised here, although you didn't elaborate on them...and just reflecting over some of the conversations that we had with military personnel over the last little while, where efforts on the part of rear party units or rear party support groups, if you want to call them that, were not always well received.

It's not to say that they weren't trying or anything like that. It's just that there seemed to be some concern expressed on the part of some of the spouses in particular, and it may very well differ from base to base, as to how effective or how efficient they may be. Maybe you can elaborate on that part.

You mentioned in here, just relating to this point, that the military family resource centre assists spouses in dealing with ongoing concerns or emergencies of any sort. While a rear party may also perform this function, it recognizes that some spouses feel more comfortable in dealing with this because there's a perception that bringing concerns to the unit may impact negatively on the member's career.

Would you give some examples in relation to how that may occur and why that perception is there?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes, sir. I think there are two questions I heard in what you said.

First of all, is there a standard of support to families? Yes, there is, although I must tell you that this standard has only been developed in the last two years and has been well recognized and put in place. Even as we speak, for example, the 1 Canadian Air Division is in the process of defining a mixed standard for all air personnel who are deployed, and they're doing this by involving the spouses themselves in writing the standard for the air force.

So yes, there is now in place a minimum standard and I think it's very good.

I've been reading closely the summaries and some of the transcripts of your meetings, and my impression has been that the families feel reasonably well supported during deployments. There may be exceptions, but I think they do feel reasonably well supported during deployment. I think there are some concerns near the end and the aftermath of deployments.

The reality is that I think rear parties take care of the tangible concerns of families. If there's a foul-up in the pay, if there's no one to shovel the walk and someone for some reason can't do that, if the mail isn't going through properly, if the person's going to take their mid-tour leave and needs help, the rear party's excellent at dealing with those things. My experience is that the military family resource centres are better at dealing with the less tangible problems, and I think it's understandable that the spouse of a military member who's going through a tough time emotionally may not want to phone the rear party and talk about that but will phone the military family resource centre. That's why I think their roles are importantly complementary. And that's where the military family resource centres have shone in supporting spouses with this difficulty.

• 0940

A lot of the support groups formed by military family resource centres are around the unit level, that is with the very people that are going through exactly the same worries and concerns. I don't know if I'm answering your question.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, in part. It appears, though, that—and you make note of it in that particular paragraph on the last page—the rear party also performs this function of looking after the intangibles. But you note too that there is this difference. I always thought of the rear party as looking after the physical things and nothing to do with all the emotional concerns that maybe someone might have.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I think that in the past the sense of family within the regiment was much stronger, frankly, than I believe it is now. And that's been replaced in large part by the military family resource centre.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: The days when, frankly, the commanding officer's wife was expected to basically form various support groups...I don't think is realistic. It's still happening—I believe you heard from Mrs. Calvin, for instance, on that—but we can't expect them to do this.

Mr. Art Hanger: No.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: And this is the role of the military family resource centre.

Mr. Art Hanger: No, that's fair enough. As a point of clarification on that statement that was on the back page, on the mission information line you indicate here that in one twelve-month period there were 120,000 contacts.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is that actually a lot?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Right now, for instance, when things are less hectic than they were, say, with the Medak pocket or some of the other high-tension events, we're averaging 80,000 contacts throughout the year. A lot of them are from the parents of reservists, as well as boyfriends, girlfriends and of course spouses.

We are the only country in the world that has this line. Other countries are modelling on this. It's been really successful in allaying a lot of fear, concern, and anxiety of the families. They can get information without talking to anyone, or they can get information by talking to the staff who are there.

I don't want you to believe that those 80,000 calls are all people phoning in distress. Many of them just want to hear the commanding officer's or the master corporal's update on how things are going.

And, through the Internet and telephone, if the commanding officer doesn't do it on Wednesday when he's supposed to, one of the encouraging things is that his troops are telling him, they're waiting for your message. So we know it's really popular and well used.

Mr. Art Hanger: So it's a recorded message or one—

Mr. Jim Jamieson: There are right now 55 voice mail options available if you phone that line. So you can confirm what's going on with your spouse—your husband usually—in D company, in such-and-such a location in Bosnia. Only about 5% of the calls are handled live. And our staff either solve the problem or make sure it's solved.

It's been very useful. Without going off on a tangent, one example is that when we had 12 people captive, that's the day we got the 1,500 calls. One woman phoned from Edmonton and asked, “Is my husband one of those? Nobody's phoned me.” We asked her what her name was, and sure enough, her husband was one of those people. She was told, “Look, we'll check into this and make sure we get back to you.”

• 0945

To make a long story short, this woman had gone on a trip away from Calgary and the unit had been furiously looking for her so she would know what was going on. They couldn't find her and she hadn't told anyone where she was going. We were able to tell the unit how to get hold of her, so we didn't have one of those horror stories of the woman saying she found out in the press that her husband was captive.

So that's just one example. The line has been a big success, in my view, at relatively low cost. I would invite you to phone it some time.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hanger. Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: You don't have to listen to all 55 options. You might have to listen to two or three voice mails.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: In your statement, you said that your services are generally provided where numbers warrant, if I have understood you correctly.

[English]

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I don't think I said where the numbers were, sir. They're offered everywhere, although the extent of services offered varies depending on the population. For example, if we have two or three reservists from Chicoutimi and that's all, those people may only have the mission information line in place to help them. Reserves are a big concern of ours.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I am not talking only about the MIL, but about all the available services. You said that services are available to deployed CF members, but also on a permanent basis, when there are no deployment, if I have understood you correctly. Your services are not only available in cases of deployment. You provide services at CF bases. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes sir, we will talk about that on May 13, unless you want to pursue it now. We will talk specifically about all the services offered by military family resource centres. Today I was asked to speak only on the services during deployments. But military family resource centres offer a huge range of services such as child care services, employment support services, information on schools, dentists and doctors, and a crisis intervention service. We're going to talk about that in some detail on, I believe, May 13.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I don't want to have to wait until May 13 to obtain the information. In Trenton, we heard from a CF member from Quebec, who has a three year old handicapped child, a paraplegic. The only thing that this child can hope to achieve in life is to learn how to speak. There is no one in Trenton to teach him. There is no occupational therapist. There's no one to teach this child how to speak French. This is the only thing that he will succeed in doing in life. And the father was told: "Listen, this is a personal problem. If you are not satisfied, then quit the Armed Forces and go back home to Quebec, where there are many services."

I understand that it is not your service that would provide the lessons, but I would like to know if it deals with these types of personal problems that service personnel may encounter when they are stationed far from home.

[English]

Mr. Jim Jamieson: The short answer is yes, we certainly deal with those types of problems. We primarily serve the minority language people at any particular base. In Bagotville it would be the English population; in Trenton it would be the French population. We specifically have a mandate to assist minority language people in obtaining services. Without going off on a tangent, on some bases the Commissioner of Official Languages has lauded the work of the military family resource centre in this area.

In Trenton, we have a huge child care program in place. I believe you heard in Trenton from people who wanted more in the way of child care. That's fine and we would like to do more.

• 0950

In the case of a child with a handicap, at a few locations we have specific programs. We don't have programs in Trenton for handicapped children in French. We do have a responsibility to serve that family and find services if they are available. If they are not available, we will certainly help the family if it is their wish to be posted where those services are available.

I would be the first to admit that in Trenton it would be very difficult to find specialized services in French for a handicapped child.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: You would have no difficulty finding one in Quebec. In view of the situation, the CF member in question asked to be transferred to Quebec, where there are many educational services for his child. The request was denied, and he was told to leave the army. He was told that if he didn't like it, he could simply go home. This sort of reply is often made. This is what service members are told. Are you aware of this?

[English]

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes, I'm aware of some reports of that. The posting location is not an area the family support centres have any direct control over. Their job is to support the people in those situations as best as possible, and if it's not possible because of a specialized need, to work with the social workers to assist the family in getting a posting to where the family can get the need met. In theory that happens. Does it always happen? Apparently not.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I have no further questions.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Jamieson, for being here this morning. I'm glad to hear in the presentation you made that these things are getting better. My questions have pretty well all been covered by you. I just want you to reassure us that the checks and balances are there to ensure the spouses, when their spouses are deployed, get as good-quality service as the person who is deployed.

The other thing, on the MIL, you've kind of changed that a bit, because we hear stories that the people get the information from CNN. I wonder if the information they get on the MIL is as up to date and good as the information they get from CNN. This is a whole new era we're into, with instantaneous broadcasts.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: The information they get on the mission information line is totally up to date. We get updates every day. If necessary, we change the information on the lines. One of the reasons we set up the mission information line is exactly because of what you're talking about.

During the Gulf War, for example, there is no doubt our families were learning a lot more from CNN than we could tell them. We could not keep up with it. The MIL is one location where they can get accurate, daily updated information. It's, dare I say, more accurate than anything else, including CNN.

This is a real problem. I believe General Dallaire spoke to you about it the other day. Our families are now involved right in the missions because of the instant communication and television.

The mission information line and the family support programs we now have were set up directly because of the real anxiety our families had during the Gulf War. These were big precipitating factors.

In this city alone, for example, we scrambled to form three distinct support groups because some spouses were up morning, noon and night watching CNN. They were in extreme anxiety about the situation. In fact, our people were not in any particular danger, but we had the paradox of the husband in Qatar phoning his wife to support her, rather than the other way around, because of the CNN syndrome, as we came to call it.

I'm sorry I'm taking a bit longer. But I can assure you our information is up to date. The whole preoccupation of the two people who man this line is to keep it up to date and be available to our families.

• 0955

Mr. George Proud: The other part is about the quality of service to these people who are at home when their spouses are deployed. They may be isolated instances, but we hear cases where the Canadian Forces military personnel will not deal with them at all when their spouses are off on deployment. I guess this happens from time to time.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I think there are frustrations sometimes. People can't get the information. They don't know who to turn to. But the MFRCs and the line are there to solve that problem. The spouse should not have to wade through the bureaucracy; we'll do it for them. That's what this best practice standards is all about.

I would say in the last two years it has reached the point of considerable excellence. We're still trying to improve it. We're trying to develop satellite offices of the MFRCs at locations where there are reservists in any appreciable number, because there are situations now where there are a number of reservists and we have nothing in place. We're trying to do one year of follow-up with families. We are trying to improves the services.

But I would be very disappointed if you heard complaints about support during deployments in the last couple of years. I hope that is not true.

Mr. George Proud: Yes, we've heard them. As I said, they might be isolated instances, but we've heard them.

Thank you.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: You still have about five minutes left. Mr. Clouthier.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Jamieson, I guess you've answered a lot of my questions through my colleagues Art Hanger and George Proud. Probably one of the greatest concerns I get from the people in my riding, which includes CFB Petawawa—and I have heard it year after year after year—is a seeming lack of support for the spouses whenever the troops are deployed.

I realize it's a very difficult situation and you can't respond to each and every one of them. And I do agree with you that the CNN and the media coverage of these cataclysmic events throughout the world do jump-start them and get their anxiety level up. But having said that, I was going to ask you if there was a national standard for some kind of continuity.

I believe when you were speaking to Mr. Hanger you mentioned it. I personally believe that these people in these MFRCs, these family resource centres, should be forced—maybe “forced” is not the correct word—or persuaded to take the same course or have some type of national standard from base to base.

One of the difficulties being felt by some of the people who are transferred, whether it's to CFB Petawawa or CFB Trenton or Gagetown, is that it is not the same type of program being offered in each and every place. As you well know, if you keep people happy you're going to get better workmanship, you're going to get reduced stress levels, because, as you have indicated, sometimes it's the soldiers who are deployed or actually on site who are almost more concerned about what's happening back home, even the mundane things such as cleaning the driveway.

I've been to the hockey rinks, and the wives have come up to me and told me that they went to their resource centre because their child was in desperate need of help and they had to get it to CHEO in Ottawa. They have told me the resource centre wouldn't even talk to them, other than to tell them to find their own way down. The husband's cheque wasn't coming there, and it seems there was just mass confusion.

I realize, though, it comes out of frustration and perhaps they're isolated incidences. But I say to you, Mr. Jamieson, these isolated incidences are becoming far too prevalent and something has to be done.

I was very pleased when you said this morning that national standards were going to be set. I believe that's the way to go. Somehow, we have to coordinate and reinforce these services so that someone is there to help them.

I know you have this MIL line and, as you said, 55 options. Sometimes when the stress level is up, that's why they're calling. Well, if the stress level wasn't up before and all of sudden there's 55 options—I haven't phoned it—that won't help the level. I know you're trying to do the job to the very best of your capabilities, but far too often I see things falling through the cracks that perhaps shouldn't. In many instances it's a result of human error or a perceived lack of compassion, and we most certainly don't need that in our Canadian military.

• 1000

Mr. Jim Jamieson: There are a number of issues you brought up.

First of all, with respect to the mission information line, one of your first options is, if you wish to speak to someone right away, press zero, or whatever it is. So you don't have to go through more than one voice mail. If you know your spouse is in Bosnia, it says press 2, and if he is in A platoon, B platoon or whatever, press 1, 2 or 3. It's to get you right into where you need to be.

I don't want you to have the impression that you have to wade through 55 mail boxes. That's not true at all.

Secondly, yes, if I'm not misusing your words, there is a way we are forcing the MFRCs to meet a common national standard. It has been summarized. Again, I think you were given this book as well. I don't know where you get time to read all of this, but this is a contractual agreement between ourselves in the centre and each MFRC. They must meet the minimum standards in this book, and deployment is covered in this as part of it.

There are horror stories; I accept that. We have over 700 full- and part-time people now out there at our military family resource centres, and their whole raison d'être is to serve the families. Over half of those, a slight majority of those, are funded not by the department but by the fund-raising that these centres have been able to do to bolster their services. I would be very disappointed if someone phoned the MFRC and was told, well, sorry, we can't help you get to Ottawa with a sick child. It would be totally unacceptable if that were to happen.

There are universal standards. These kicked in on April 1 of this year. We're auditing them; we're checking them. But my impression has been that most of our staff and over 3,800 registered volunteers are working their tails off to support families. The big problems are not what they're doing; they are the pay, housing, and the unavoidable stress that a mission causes for everybody.

I think the MFRCs are a good news story. Can we do more? Can we do better? Yes, and we're doing that. I have several initiatives. We'll probably talk about them more in the May session, unless you want to get into them now.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: No.

I guess you've touched on it earlier, about the tangibles and the MFRC. The question I'm going to ask you is, I know they're trained in the tangibles, but a lot of the time the emotional is a direct result of the tangibles. Maybe you'd say, listen, we'll shovel your driveway, or we'll get your child down to Ottawa, but then there is also the emotional level. That's why I was concerned about the training.

There is a lot of stress and emotion that does have a lot to do with the tangibles. But it's one thing to say you'll do this for them and then just, cut and dry, kind of say, listen, we're going to do it this way, or we're not going to do it this way. Instead of thinking about the emotional state of the person they're dealing with, all that does then is exacerbate the problem.

That was my concern. Is there going to be some continuity as regards the things that are not tangible, the emotional stress?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Each large military family resource centre—and this is certainly true of Petawawa—has at least one qualified professional social worker whose sole raison d'être is to deal with crisis and support, outside the chain of command. And of course, within the chain of command, I know at Petawawa you have two military social workers who I know personally are highly compassionate people.

They probably need about two more. As you know, Petawawa has been hit with a lot of deployments, and it has caused a lot of distress for our families.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: As you would say, aye, there's the rub. I think we need more.

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Price.

Mr. David Price: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll continue on in the direction in which Mr. Clouthier was going.

In visiting Petawawa, after visiting many bases across the country, I found it a little different. Actually, I found that Petawawa was actually fairly well set up compared to Moose Jaw, for instance, where we found that it was very bad. Granted there's a lot less deployment out of Moose Jaw. That's what drives me back to what Mr. Hanger referred to as “where numbers warrant”. I get that feeling too.

• 1005

Again we heard it in Petawawa, the problem with the services in French. There are only 14 listed unilingual francophones and yet there are more than 1,100 bilingual people on the ground, therefore making roughly 350 unilingual French families there, and they're not getting any services. They're saying any services.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: First of all, the agreement we have with each military family resource centre requires that all common standard programming be in both official languages: pamphlets, handouts, the newsletter.

Mr. David Price: Granted. I can understand if you're looking at it in the sense that there are only 14 people there.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: No. We don't have that figure. In fact, we just did a staff assistance visit to Petawawa, and one of the four things we pushed the military family resource centre on was that they have to do a better job of service to francophone families. You're right, they are not doing as good a job as they're supposed to do. We are pushing that right now.

There are a number of francophone families. I think he said 350. I would agree that's probably about the right number. If you're saying the military family resource centre specifically is not giving them as good a service as they should, I agree. We are on top of it. We're pushing them.

At most locations the MFRC has been a godsend for the francophone families, and Moose Jaw is a prime example. It is the place that organizes a huge number of events. It has a French library and French videos.

Mr. David Price: I agree, but then we're talking about services that are taking place on a regular basis. When we look at the deployment side, which you're here to talk about today, and we look at Moose Jaw, the services are very bad on the deployment side.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: You may be right. It is true. Obviously Moose Jaw does not have the deployments that Edmonton, Petawawa, Valcartier, etc. have. Therefore, the excellence of service is better at those locations.

We have introduced, though, as I said, on April 1 of this year, a common standard. It is written in this book.

Mr. David Price: Okay, I think that's very important.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: And we have a set of best practices.

Mr. David Price: Is there a follow-up after that?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: There are at least four services. Every deployed family should get this: specific information, handouts and literature that covers the whole gamut of what they are going to face, an active offer of outreach, whether you're in Moose Jaw or wherever, that says if you want to have contact with us weekly or even two or three times a week, we will have a trained person speak with you each week, be supportive to you, be your one-person support group. They are guaranteed to get a reunion briefing and are guaranteed to get the newspaper that invites them to all the events that are set up. So they are guaranteed those four minimum services, whether they are in Moose Jaw or wherever.

This only kicked in, though, on April 1 of this year, and the reason we did that is exactly what you said: the service quality was varying.

Mr. David Price: But now that you've set up some standards for the service, is there also a policy set up to make sure there is a follow-up on those standards?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes. We have a full-time audit person in our larger agency who will go out and do the audit according to the standards. It is my job then to make sure those standards are met or, if they're not being met, to find out why not and what we need to do about it.

Deployment, spousal employment and child care are our three biggest issues. This will not fall through the cracks. I will admit that some individuals may still not feel as well served as I would like, but the vast majority of people are already well served, and we'll improve on that.

Mr. David Price: My other thing was the militia problem, taking care of those families, but you already have addressed it. I guess at this point you don't have anything really solid down to....

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Well, we're trying to do three specific things that we're not doing currently. One is a one-year follow-up with militia members and their families. We'll offer services to them for a year afterwards, because that's the hardest part. Colonel McLellan will also talk about that, a week from today I believe. Especially for those who feel they have suffered some emotional or even physical injuries, we have to do better, and there is a plan that he will talk to you about.

• 1010

The second thing we're talking about, always contingent upon resources of course, is satellite offices of the MFRCs. They can use the expertise of the MFRC by plugging in. We already have a pilot of this going on at Thunder Bay. It plugs into Winnipeg, and is primarily for the reservists out of the Thunder Bay area.

As you'll hear when I come back to see you again, we're looking at trying to get resources to beef up considerably our child care capability, particularly for people who are deployed—and I mean “deployed” in every sense of the word here.

Mr. David Price: Even if it's locally.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes, for an ice storm, a flood, or a call-out for base defence force in the middle of the night. We have to have in place things for the parents—particularly the single parents—and for their children.

Mr. David Price: Yes, that's something we heard quite a bit.

Thank you very much, Mr. Jamieson.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Thank you.

The Chairman: We now go to the five-minute round, beginning with Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I recognize the importance of this support group, certainly. I wonder, though, how much influence you have in assisting members if they're stricken with, say, a death in the family. What kind of influence would there be in aiding a family that has a death, whether it's immediate family or somewhere down the road? Is there a compassionate leave policy?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes, there is, but you're getting into an area that's not my expertise, sir. My expertise is the services of military family resources centres. But the Canadian Forces do have a compassionate leave policy, and certainly it relates to any death or injury of a family member. Our job in military family support is to support that family during that time.

Mr. Clouthier has left, but just as a specific example, you may remember that there recently was a child lost and eventually found dead in Petawawa. The MFRC set up a strong support network to help the family and so on. That's the sort of thing we do.

If the member needs leave, that's between him and his commanding officer, but there certainly is a provision for compassionate leave.

Mr. Art Hanger: What is the provision, do you know?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I know he can give him at least two weeks, and he can go to a higher level to get up to one month. But I'm really out of my depth here. This is not my field of expertise.

Mr. Art Hanger: Since you would be dealing with many families in reference to deaths in those particular families, though, could you tell me if it includes immediate family, outside parents, grandparents? Would they be eligible for compassionate leave for those?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: My understanding is that compassionate leave is a judgment call, but I would say they certainly would be. Use of service air, though, is restricted to immediate family. That usually means your parents, your spouse or your child.

Mr. Art Hanger: If leave is required and a posting is in a remote area, would they be entitled to leave? Also, would there be some support on the part of the military to ensure that the family gets to the funeral in a timely fashion?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: This is a compensation and benefits question, and I don't know if Colonel Lemay has been here yet. This is not my area, though, sir, so I can't answer with any authority on that.

I can tell you this, though: as chair of the Canadian Forces Personnel Assistance Fund, CFPAF, just with a phone call I have the ability to give up to $5,000 in a grant for any situation that can't be met within the service entitlements.

• 1015

Mr. Art Hanger: Well, I have a good example here for you right now that will let you put that money to good use.

A 30-year member of the force and his family are posted in Gander. There are no military flights in and out of Gander. All the flights, actually, have been cancelled in Gander.

A grandmother has died in Petawawa. The forces have certainly granted the family an opportunity to go, for compassionate leave, but this is what they're going to do. They've offered to drive the five family members to Halifax.

Now, this is from Gander, a two-day trip. The driving would cost the family about $1,000 in food, lodging, and other incidental things. It would mean two days off work and school, both ways. There are regular duty flights out of St. John's, yet the family has been told they can't take any of these, even though there are five to ten free seats available on these flights.

The family is facing having to borrow $2,500 to fly from St. John's, on a commercial airline, to Petawawa. I find it rather odd—

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Odd on the surface, for sure.

Mr. Art Hanger: —that they would have to go through this kind of scenario. They have to make up their mind today. This is happening right now.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: If Ron Walsh, director of the MFRC in Gander, is not already involved in this, I can certainly ask him to be.

I cannot control the use of service flights. I cannot control leave entitlement. That's between the member and his commanding officer. What I can do, though, is support the family financially if there's a reasonable case. We can give them a grant or an interest-free loan through the Canadian Forces Personnel Assistance Fund. One of the reasons family support centres are there is to plug into this if there's a reasonable case.

I'd not heard of this case until right now.

Mr. Art Hanger: Do you want to personally deal with this issue?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I will phone the executive director at Gander and ask him to speak to this family and assist them to the full extent possible.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay, because I think this is going to have to be dealt with rather quickly.

I want to make one other comment, if I may, Mr. Chairman.

You spoke of the loss of a child of one of the members in Petawawa. You spoke about that. I think that particular member gave a very emotional presentation to this committee. He wasn't very happy about the way everything was handled. As he mentioned here, it was four months before the Roman Catholic padre came to see him, and weeks after there was one visit by the Protestant chaplain, and no follow-up whatsoever.

Immediately after the death of the child and the burial, he was ordered to a new posting. That was one month after that death. No one there intervened for him so that he could re-establish some stability over the grief he and his family had suffered—and are still suffering, I might point out. It seemed as though it was just a one-shot effort. In fact, they were very crass to him when he did share that particular point about the posting.

He summed it up this way: adding grief to other complaints just magnifies that particular problem even more.

Now, you may say it's only one incident—

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I didn't say that.

Mr. Art Hanger: No, I'm not saying that; I'm saying some may say it's only one incident. Unfortunately, however, we've been hearing it far too often. It's not just one incident.

It seems as though there's a real gap, and I have my doubts as to whether the resource centre is actually filling that gap when it comes right down to heavy-duty support required for some members who do have losses. It's just not there.

Thank you.

• 1020

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger, for your information, the case that Mr. Jamieson was mentioning is not the same one as you were mentioning. I know the case quite well. The case that Mr. Jamieson is referring to concerns a young girl and happened a couple of months ago.

Mr. Art Hanger: The murder?

The Chairman: No. The drowning in the Petawawa River. But this one, I think, goes back a number of years. I just wanted to point that out as a point of clarification.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

The Chairman: Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Hanger, in fairness, I think the cases we've heard about where there has been very insensitive treatment happened quite some time ago. I think they happened well before family resource centres were up and functioning in any real fashion.

I want to talk about the funding. You indicated that a great number of your funds are non-public funds.

I guess this distresses me a little, because my sense is that the big bases, the more affluent bases perhaps, are able to put more money into this, and where the resources are the thinnest, the capacity of the forces to add to this is greatly diminished. It's sort of a catch-22. If you're a rich base, you put more money in and get more services. If you're a poor base, you don't have any and you're not getting any.

So while we say we have standardization across the board, we have it maybe in the basic funding, but certainly I think it becomes this kind of a situation as you look at the other thing.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: There are two uses of the words “non-public funds”. There are capital and PF non-public funds that, as I believe you probably know, are raised by base activities. And you're right, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

That's going to come up on May 13. In fact, one of my bosses is here today, but the other one will be here, General Popowych, and you may wish to address that question of the distribution of non-public funds with him.

But I will say this much. There is a centralized portion of that which is distributed according to need, so therefore there is some balancing out of it. But beyond that I'm getting out of my depth.

The funding for military family support centres that I'm talking about is non-public funding in a different sense. It's money raised through a number of ways. One of the—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, but it's raised locally, at each local base, as opposed to—

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Some of it is raised by our office. We have a national fund-raising campaign. It's getting more and more successful. Again, we distribute it where it's needed, so the rich don't get richer through us. For instance, a base like Borden, which is doing very well, doesn't get anything. Other bases get funds or goods or tickets from us. We try to redistribute it that way.

A lot of grants and other things, like donations, go to small bases, though. So in terms of the military support program, it's not as bad as you're perhaps saying. Some of our small bases have done extremely well. There is considerable variance, though, I will agree. What is standardized right now, ma'am, is the public funding that goes—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: And I appreciate that, but I think the public funding only looks after a certain percentage. I won't dwell on it. I will talk to General Popowych about it. I'm pleased to hear that you at least realize there's a disparity and that you're working towards sort of levelling that out.

The other area that I believe needs a great deal of action and attention is this whole area of child care. You touched on it very briefly when you were talking with Mr. Price, and you specifically mentioned single parents.

But I think there needs to be a realization that every parent is a single parent during deployment. It sounds fine when the husband or wife is home; there's a opportunity to spell each other off. Raising a family and looking after those day-to-day things can become very exhausting, particularly if you have other concerns. And for spouses in an area of high conflict, I would suggest that it's fairly stressful.

With respect to the opportunity to get some respite, just from even the most mundane tasks, I think this is an area where it's nice to have someone shovel the driveway, but quite frankly, I think it would be nicer to have someone there at 5 p.m. when you're trying to bathe three crying kids and trying to explain why daddy's not home.

• 1025

I know you're being pulled in a hundred areas, but I would think this is a pretty major dissatisfier. I think it also adds to the real sense of frustration and difficulty in the reunions as well. I have a sense from a number of the mothers I've talked to that as happy as they are to see their husband come home, it's sort of “You take them; I've had enough”. Quite frankly, the spouse has another view of what should happen when he's on leave. So there's that kind of a difficulty.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: As I mentioned earlier, this is one of our three major program activities. We're going to talk about this more later. This is one of the main things I want to talk about at that time. We have a huge array of children's services, everything from respite babysitting to full-fledged daycare.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's not what we're seeing when we're out there.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Well, it's not enough, I agree, but here's the problem. I am not allowed to spend one cent of public money on the actual provision of this care. We use public money to hire a children's services coordinator, but all the money after that to meet this has to come from user fees, fund-raising, cookie sales, etc.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I understand your frustration. I guess maybe I'm saying that here's one member of the committee—and I don't suspect that I'm the only one—who may want to see a recommendation that perhaps public funds should be spent in those areas. I think these are basic quality of life issues.

One could suggest that if you're single you may have something to do with that, but in many cases these are good, cohesive family units. Through no fault of their own, they are being torn apart in the service of their country. I think public funds should be spent trying to provide some level of comfort.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: In my next presentation there is a specific proposal and a specific dollar figure attached to that, to meet exactly the needs you're saying. We would like to guarantee that if the Canadian Forces commits your spouse, we will have in place a series of child care services available to you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Obviously that's not just for single parents.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: No. As you said, when the member is deployed, the other parent becomes a single parent.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Probably with fewer coping skills than the single parent has. They've developed those skills over a very long period of time, but the married spouse is single suddenly.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: The other complication is that 70% of those spouses are working themselves now. Many of them would argue that they have to work.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Some of them have aged parents that they're looking after as well, or other family members they're giving care to.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I would agree this is a big concern. Without being defensive, compared to four years ago we have.... Of that 700 staff I met, more than 50% work exclusively in child care, and that's all staff in place that we never had four years ago. It's only a dent in the problem, but it's a major dent. We have a long way to go, I agree.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you; I appreciate that you understand.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mrs. Longfield.

Bob Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to pick up on what Mr. Hanger was saying about this gentleman in Petawawa who came before our committee and talked about the quality of life.

To add to what Art was saying, apparently he did go to the family resource centre, and in his words they didn't know where to go for help. I hope that's an isolated case. I hope that doesn't happen all the time. This gentleman and his family obviously experienced a great trauma in their life and they were trying to get help, and the family resource centre didn't know where to go for help. That's kind of scary. I don't care if it was one year or ten years ago; they should know what's going on.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I agree. I don't know who he spoke to. I don't know the specifics of this case. I have no defence against this man's pain. I can only tell you that in Petawawa specifically we have a highly competent social worker who's very capable of helping people deal with pain and knows all the resources in the Pembroke-Petawawa area. Why this connection didn't take place I don't know.

• 1030

Mr. Bob Wood: Well, are not all family resource centres trained the same? I think this guy was in Winnipeg. I have a little thing here that says, “No support in Winnipeg as well”. But whether he's in Winnipeg or Petawawa, aren't they all basically trained the same, or is there no standard? There has to be, doesn't there?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: The qualifications demanded in the area of crisis intervention and support—that's one of our five areas—are, yes, a professional counselling degree at a minimum, and the preferred is considerable experience in working with military families.

Winnipeg is one of our best MFRCs. There may be specific problems, but I'm not aware of any. I have not read the transcript of the Petawawa thing; I've read up to that.

Mr. Bob Wood: If you're interested, we can certainly give you the guy's name. I have it right here, if you're interested in maybe pursuing it.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Well, I guess all I can say is we do have in place trained counsellors to help people at all large military family resource centres. If this case wasn't treated properly, there's no excuse for that, but....

Mr. Bob Wood: You just mentioned large family resource centres.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are there only resources at large bases? Is there a criterion that bases over x personnel—

Mr. Jim Jamieson: Wherever there are 50 Canadian Forces members we will have a full-fledged military family resource centre, including a crisis intervention and support capability. We do have some smaller than that. For instance, in Naples, Italy, we only have, I think, 19 families, but we have a small MFRC, because of the stress of living there. In those cases they don't offer the full range of service; it's primarily information, support, and connectedness.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Richardson.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank you for coming, Mr. Jamieson. It's an opportunity for us to look at some of the programs you have across Canada.

We've come a long way. If we go back in intervals, say from the Second World War to the Korean War to the operations when we were a big part of NATO, all of those things kept spouses apart to some degree. For the NATO one we built a lot of PMQs. We had the first breakthrough with the Maple Leaf stores and providing Canadian amenities as much as possible for them as close as possible to what you would see in a Loblaws or an A&P store in Canada, on a much smaller scale.

In these cases we had a lot of padres. Even in those days in NATO, we were on manoeuvres a lot of the time, because that was the biggest part of our job, to exercise on site where we were to be deployed.

The problems always seemed to come up when we were away for long deployments. The soldiers who were married were always concerned that the people back home were being looked after, but the news back and forth then was very slow coming, even back to the base. What we see now is a step forward. Soon I'll be going to Bosnia for my third time, as will some of the others on the committee. In those three events we have seen communications back home just zoom ahead.

The biggest and the best money spent has been on giving a free phone to any soldier who wants to phone home at any time when he's in a non-deployed situation, to talk to his father and mother or his wife and children. It's taken the heat off. Originally everyone was phoning and using it; now it's tapered down a bit, because they're reassured that they can get instant communication, that they can be in touch and talk about what's happening and what they're doing. And people at home are reassured by that.

So I want to say that you get a five-star rating, whoever brought that in, for providing a comfort level for the people back home and for the people over there. I know it's not cheap, but it pays off in morale, and it seems to have everyone in very good form. When we talked to them, they really didn't have many complaints about being serviced back and forth.

• 1035

So I'd like to highlight that, because it's a new one and I don't know why we never thought of it before. But it works and was very simple.

We heard a lot of concerns across the way about support, but support with care by the people who were delivering the support, and support within Canadian Forces up and down, from headquarters to officers, NCOs and ORs. Maybe the tension is there because of the draw-down in the forces, but there is a strain on the people at National Defence Headquarters in servicing the people in the field through some comfort about their careers—maybe the career counsellors or anyone dealing with them. There seems to be a shortness right now in servicing people who have some concerns. I think I mentioned that to General Dallaire.

We had all kinds of examples of it in our hearings in Petawawa from soldiers, sergeants and warrant officers particularly. I don't know how we're going to overcome it, but whatever it is, we'll never do it with smart answers and quick one-liners for someone who's worried about a problem. You'd better just put on the hat, turn the peak to the back and say “All right, tell me your story.” and listen with patience. Give as kind an answer and as understanding an answer as possible. Don't just say “Well, you joined, now that's the circumstance for you.” or “If you don't like it you can always get out”. Those are the kinds of answers we were hearing, and I had never heard career people do that before.

I would just say we are in a draw-down situation. I understand there's tension. I understand everybody, including career managers, is thinking about what will happen next or coping with the present overload. It's not in your field.

But the best comes out in people who are professionals when the times are worst, and I think that time is now. People at the bottom end feel that as much as they're being paid, they want a little more. They want a little comfort. They want to know they belong and people care about them.

That's all I have to say. What you are providing may be the vehicle to overcome some of that really strong feeling that they're not being cared for.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: I think we're part, but an important part, of the solution to this distress you're talking about. I would hope no one at a military family resource centre would ever say “You joined....” In fact, if I may just quote myself—

Mr. John Richardson: We never heard that about the family resource centre, so I would like to make that clear right now.

Mr. Jim Jamieson: No. One of the things we say in our booklet that every family member gets, related to a deployment, is this—and I thought I said it with confidence:

I invite and encourage you to contact the nearest Military Family Resource Centre or the Mission Information Line for families.... I know you will receive a warm welcome and a wealth of information....

It's critically important that people feel comfortable with these military family resource centres, and I'm very distressed about any case where that's not true.

You have triggered something, in that I think you will hear from Colonel McLellan about a one-centre phone line that anyone with an injury can phone so they don't have to wade through the bureaucracy. It appears we've treated our people terribly once we've released them after they've been injured. We perhaps treated them extremely well up to that point, but not after.

The idea is to expand something like the mission information line to a one-stop phone call for any family problem. They will sort it out for you and find out who you need to talk to.

• 1040

We can expand this capability. It's working well, as I think you're suggesting, for some situations, but we can probably do it for others. There is a lot of specialized, detailed information in sorting out allowances and entitlements, the things Mr. Hanger was talking about, and people shouldn't have to go 100 different places to get the answer. We have the technology to overcome that now.

So that's one of the directions in which we're trying to move to make our services more user-friendly.

Mr. John Richardson: To use the one example again, when soldiers go into battle, what is the thing they want to know most about? What do they want to know?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: One of them is certainly their family.

Mr. John Richardson: I think what they'll tell you is this: “Where is the casualty collection point, and is there an ambulance centre if I get injured?” They want to know that. Research has shown that over the years, that seems to be the most important thing to a soldier who goes into battle: if they're injured or wounded, will they be left to die? They want to know.

So everybody, in their orders, always has that marked down, the casualty collecting points and the whole sequence of getting back to a hospital. That gives them a comfort level when they're going in, that they're going to be looked after.

I think that's the same thing with people who may not be in the front lines but who still want to know, to some extent, when they're posted offshore or when they're left at home, if they'll be looked after.

I'm using an analogy, but it's a good one. It's just a comfort that there will be some care. I think it's there, but I don't know if it's being exploited or if some people are undermining it. I'm not sure.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to elaborate a bit more on some of the examples that were used. The member of 25 years down in Petawawa is going to throw in his papers, because he's had it. This was the final straw. He's a career military man, and obviously well versed in his trade, but he doesn't want to have anything to do with it any more. This broke him, if you will, in terms of the extra time he might have spent with the military.

The same goes with this family in Gander. They were told to take it or leave it. That was the offer. Of course, if you want bitterness to spring up in someone, that's about the quickest way you can do it.

When it comes to the family resource centre, what is your status? Are you interveners or do you just move the member in this direction or that so that they can fend for themselves after that point? What is your role?

Mr. Jim Jamieson: We're going to talk about that in detail on May 13, but without undermining that, these centres developed in response to spouses' concerns that their voice was not being heard, that their needs and concerns were not being addressed, and that they had no mechanism to make their concerns known.

The mechanism that was developed was that if spouses organized and incorporated themselves, in the province in which they resided, as incorporated entities with a board of directors, the Canadian Forces would fund them to meet their needs in five agreed-upon areas: information referral; quality of life education, which includes deployment and spousal employment; crisis intervention and support, which we were alluding to; a range of children and youth services; and finally, professional volunteer development.

The majority of members on the board are civilian spouses. They set the priorities within those five program areas. We turn over funding for them to hire professional staff to meet their needs in those five areas. They meet quarterly with the base commander. He tells them his problems and they tell him theirs. Both the base commander and the MFRC have formal mandates to serve the family in a partnership. That's in essence how it works.

• 1045

A lot of the problems you would have heard of five years ago you won't hear now because these mechanisms are in place. For instance, in the press five or six years ago, before Somalia, spousal abuse was a major problem. As well, five years ago you might have heard that they didn't get any support during missions, or that they had no way to make their needs known.

I would hope you would not hear that now, in part because of military family support centres. I think some very articulate spouses spoke to you, encouraged by the family support centre to say what they wanted to say.

I don't know if I'm answering your question, but that's in essence how they exist. They don't solve all military problems and all family problems, but I believe they are a major positive force right now in meeting a lot of the families' needs.

Like everyone else, I have to compete for my share of the budget, and it's not easy, but I think with the resources we have, the department and the Canadian people and certainly our families are getting good value for their money.

I will give a more formal presentation on this on May 13.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Jamieson, thank you very much for appearing before us this morning.

The meeting is adjourned.