EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, March 11, 1997

.1533

[English]

The Chair (Ms Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.)): I call the committee to order, colleagues.

I'd like to welcome General R. A. Dallaire, Chief of Staff, ADM Personnel. You have colleagues with you, General Dallaire. Perhaps you would like to introduce them.

[Translation]

Major General R.A. Dallaire (Chief of Staff, ADM (Personnel), Department of National Defence): Madam Chair,

[English]

I brought half a regiment's worth of technical advisers.

The Chair: I see. You don't have to introduce them all, just the ones at the table.

MGen Dallaire: Thank you for welcoming us this afternoon. If I may, I'd like to introduce the colleagues who are with me at the table, not to say that those who are in a supporting role should not also be introduced. I hope that if there is a technical point that should be responded to appropriately, my other colleagues will also be able to come to the table.

The Chair: Absolutely.

MGen Dallaire: Very good.

With me today is Mr. Bernard Butler from the Department of Veterans Affairs, or Veterans Canada, as part of the triumvirate, the team, which is the subject we're talking about this afternoon; Jim Rycroft, who is from the Royal Canadian Legion and is involved in all the processes regarding files of personnel who went looking for support; my two close colleagues, Colonel McLelland from our health services, who is handling the health side and who also is a social worker by professional training and has handled many cases in that area, and Ewart Thornhill, who is in personnel support and has decided after only 42 years of service to this Canadian government -

A voice: It's 48 years.

.1535

MGen Dallaire: - sorry, 48 years - he's going to pack it in in the next couple of weeks. Ewart is very much the institutional memory in much of this area, and that's why I have him here today.

That's the immediate team. I have everything from technocrats to operational personnel to even a very senior lawyer. So if I really go astray....

That being said, Madam Chair, I will read from my text as an introduction to this afternoon, and then we look forward to questioning on the subject matter of the care of veterans, casualties, and retirees.

Canada planned very carefully for the post-war re-establishment and integration of veterans, which went very well after the Second World War. Demobilization proceeded quickly, and rehabilitation measures took effect equally quickly. The booming economy helped greatly, but federal policy bears most of the responsibility for the smooth post-war transition.

As those wars recede into history, there is a tendency to believe that our responsibility to our veterans is receding with them; that we are not producing nor will we most likely produce any more new veterans; that since we have been at peace for over 40 years, we need to spend neither money nor time looking after our recently released service personnel as they are now merely public servants with the same needs as the rest of the public service.

We in the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces have been as guilty as the rest of Canada in perpetuating such a myth. With so many years of peace under our belt we literally got out of practice with operational duty casualties and what their personal and family needs truly are. Couple this with the Cold War demobilization, called the peace dividend, and the operational tempo in complex and high-risk missions not seen since Korea and we have a recipe for minimizing the human dimension of human resources with the obvious low ebb of compassion and care.

For the record I wish to state three things. First, that although we legally hand over our retirees, casualties, and what one would call veterans of special duty areas to our colleagues at the Department of Veterans Affairs and other agencies, in particular the Royal Canadian Legion, there is a fundamental loyalty expected of our soldiers, sailors, and air persons throughout their careers, and as such, when they are required to leave us, that loyalty continuum requires from National Defence and the Canadian Forces a response to the moral commitment of our ex-service personnel.

The second point is that an integral element of our operational effectiveness is our concern and commitment to care for our people, their conditions of service, and their quality of life.

Finally, we have not always lived up to this obligation as well as we should have, and we are now in the process of upgrading programs hopefully to better meet the needs of our personnel.

I shall go into some of these programs and some of the points in that relationship, starting with the terms of service. One of the principal pillars supporting the terms of service offered by the Canadian Forces is the principle of universality of service. This policy means that all those who serve in the Canadian Forces in whatever capacity must be judged against the common performance and capability standards applicable in war and other military operations in addition to specific occupational and environmental standards. The basis for the universality of service principle is found in the National Defence Act, which states:

33. (1) The regular force, all units and other elements thereof and all officers and non-commissioned members thereof are at all times liable to perform any lawful duty.

This is, of course, the unlimited liability clause.

Thus any member, regardless of occupation or geographical area of employment, must be able to meet the physical demands of any duty that basic military training qualifies the member to do at any time and under any conditions.

.1540

This policy was confirmed in the recent Robinson decision delivered by the Federal Court of Appeal. It stated:

The statute...rendered Mr. Robinson liable for combat duty. It is an obligation that is well understood within the Armed Forces. Those serving in support roles are not exempt. Performance of the obligation depends neither on a ``transfer'' to a combat role nor on remustering.

The statute binds.

In this context, universality of service reflects the necessity of tailoring personnel utilization policies to meet the exigencies of defence commitments undertaken by the government. Relative to our operational commitments and tempo, we have a modest and shrinking personnel resource pool, thus maximum economy and flexibility in personnel utilization have become unavoidable, and at times ruthless, elements of our personnel policy.

For many military occupations, this trend towards economy and personnel utilization began in integration - thirty years ago. For others, more recent budgetary pressures have been the impetus. In the end, universality of service is a way of trying to do more with less, yet the policy is not without its obvious costs. Except for the occasional temporary retention of personnel who have acquired a permanent employment limitation, any Canadian Forces member who does not reach the universality standard must be released. With this inflexibility, it must be asked if this is the best approach to personnel utilization when in some cases we are discarding advanced knowledge, skills, and experience by forcing out personnel who indeed may never be deployed into operational situations anyway.

In terms of morale, what is the cost when our people know that should they no longer meet the standard due to training accidents or operational situations they will be expelled from their livelihood? Will the corporal play for the regimental hockey team just for the sake of regimental pride when he risks injury and release? If yes, fine. If no, then we have a serious impasse.

With minor exceptions, members of the Canadian Forces served under two development plans until the first of this year: the other ranks career development plan and the officer career development plan. The other ranks career development plan consisted of two basic engagements of three years, followed by an intermediate engagement of a total of 20 years. Members were re-engaged at the three- and six-year points on the authority of their unit commanding officers. After 17 years, and after reaching the minimum rank specified by their particular military occupation, members were considered by a selection board for further re-engagement for an indefinite period of service that would allow them to serve until the compulsory retirement age of 55. Members not selected were released at the 20-year point and were given a pension in accordance with the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

Under the officer career development plan, officers enrolled for an initial period of nine years of commissioned service. At the end of this, if found suitable, an officer could be offered an intermediate engagement that would expire after twenty years of service, similar to the NCMs. Also, as with the NCMs, the officers were subsequently considered for an indefinite period of service after the initial 17 or 20 years. As well, depending on the military occupation, there was a requirement for an officer to reach a base rank of captain or major in order to be considered for this indefinite period. As with the non-commissioned members, officers released at the 20-year mark were entitled to a pension. Unlike the non-commissioned members, however, those not selected for the intermediate engagement - that is, after the first nine years - were entitled to a gratuity that was based on their salary.

These development phases were established to meet the requirement for a young and fit military. It provided for an in and outflow at appropriate times, in order to provide maximum operational effectiveness. The original point of 20 years of service or 40 years of age was specifically chosen, as it was felt that one would still be young enough to start a second career in the civilian milieu at the age of 40.

.1545

However, the Canadian Forces has not done a particularly good job with respect to the resettlement process of those who were moved into the civilian milieu. We have not fully established procedures to prepare these personnel to leave at that point in their working careers, that is, while they were still serving. We have not ensured that our personnel get retraining in marketable skills either through community college or in any other form.

There is one component that we did introduce, and I will allude to it later. It's called the SCAN program.

On January 1, 1997, all members of the Canadian Forces were converted from the two previous plans to a single Canadian Forces career development plan. This plan is similar to the two that it replaced, except for four significant changes.

First, the new plan includes both officers and NCOs in the same plan.

Second, members are no longer required to achieve a base or minimum rank in order to be considered for the indefinite period of service contract, that is, to be able to serve until compulsory retirement age.

Third, officers may now, based on the guidelines provided by the service chiefs, be offered conversions to intermediate engagements by their unit's commanding officers.

Finally, the services may now retain members not selected for the indefinite period on what we're calling continuous engagements of up to five years, as based on service requirements. So it's 20 years plus up to five more years.

Another initiative to complement this new career development plan is the new personnel evaluation report, which is the annual report that's made on each of us. This new report will help to evaluate potential and will give the member more constructive feedback on his potential for continued service in the Canadian Forces.

Thus, long before the member reaches one of those gates, particularly that 20-year gate, they will have a much more solid idea of whether or not they will be considered for the indefinite period or possibly for the continuous engagement program of five years or maybe in fact until promotion.

These changes described above are intended to harmonize the treatment of officers, NCOs, and NCMs in career matters, and to allow the three environmental services a greater degree of control and input to meet their needs.

In the area of retirement, members of the Canadian Forces are annually released for medical reasons at compulsory retirement age or at one of those career development program gates.

Members in these circumstances or categories have served Canada in accordance with their agreements and are being released honourably. As well, they leave the service with skills in which the Canadian Forces has invested a considerable amount of money and time.

For this reason, it would make good sense to give them access to employment in the public sector. There was in fact a time when, at the end of their service careers, members of the Canadian Forces were allowed to apply for employment in the public service. Since June 1993, due to changes to the Public Service Employment Act, this has no longer been the case.

As you are probably aware, there is currently an omnibus regulations revision before the Privy Council on these subjects. This should be proclaimed apparently in the middle of next month.

However, since employment in the public sector at present is not always possible, the Canadian Forces is developing programs to equip retirees with skills they need in civilian life. We can get into that later on.

I mentioned earlier the SCAN, or second career assistance network. This happens as people approach these gates in their career development.

An area of benefits and services is available for retirees in the Canadian Forces, yes. Although entitlement may vary based on the years of service and the reason for retirement, essentially the benefits and services fall into six areas: pension benefits under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, retiring allowance, rehabilitation leave, relocation benefits, the public service health care plan, and the second career assistance network, or SCAN.

.1550

SCAN assists personnel in planning, preparing, and achieving their personal and professional transition to civilian environment. Transition assistance is provided to military members serving on various terms of service: release after completing basic engagement, a short-service engagement and release from the consequence of a medical career review board decision, or as a result of downsizing, such as what we've had over the last couple of years.

Normally, military members should commence participation within five years of retirement. At the very least, a member should begin participation as soon as they are notified of their release. Note that the onus is on the member to initiate participation.

However, were the troops being truly informed of this individual career status at that time? Did they know they would not make it through the next gate? Were they anticipating that? Were we in fact adjusting the profile of employment of these personnel to permit them to do that transition into civilian life if they didn't get the compulsory retirement age option? Well, not really.

Currently, the second career training reimbursement is subject to a service career limit of $2,500. It's available for up to one year after the member's date of release.

Understanding that Canadian society is changing, improvements in several areas of this program are being considered. Such an improvement is the establishment of a combined lump-sum payment for education upgrading and SCAN after a determined number of years of service, including service in the reserves, instead of simply two totally separate benefit systems.

There's the introduction of a general philosophy of personal enhancement and the reimbursement of the full cost of training and courses, encouraging people to continue to improve themselves and increase their skill sets that could be usable subsequently in the civilian world.

There's the provision of financial benefits for the retraining of military spouses after a given period of service to recognize career sacrifices made as a result of constant relocations. This helps them realign themselves for that day when in fact the spouse is released and the other spouse is looking also for re-employment.

There's the provision of more seminars and workshops to assist in career transitions for military spouses, as the current seminars are only open to spouses on an exceptional basis.

There's the establishment of a mentor program to help provide support to members of the Canadian Forces during their transition to civilian life, instead of simply dumping them.

There's the availability of information technology, including the Internet, for Canadian Forces members and their spouses to search for jobs and advertise their résumés so they become marketable and do not fall into a period of a vacuum in employment.

I'll move to the care of casualties. On that subject, let me first state that the Canadian Forces considers it of extreme importance to provide our members who have been injured in the course of their duties the most compassionate and professional care available. This includes not only the provision of medical care and assistance, but also support services to enable the injured member to access the assistance they require both physically and psychologically. It is our moral and ethical responsibility to do nothing less.

Having said that, I want to point out to you some of the policies, programs, and processes we have in place to care for our casualties. We recognize only too well that more and more lately we are placing our members in harm's way and are calling upon them, and by extension their families and loved ones, to experience stressful and dangerous assignments in a variety of special-duty areas, and that such service could result in physical and psychological injuries.

Given these facts, the Canadian Forces spends a considerable effort trying to prevent casualties that are either physical or psychological in nature. As examples, I point to the deployment stress management program, which is designed to prevent stress casualties through pre-deployment briefings to during-employment initiatives and in fact post-deployment briefings for members and their families.

.1555

As well, the Canadian Forces policy on critical incident stress management is a policy designed to help our members cope with traumatic events and to prevent the development of post-traumatic stress disorder.

While we have made considerable progress in the area of preventing psychological and stress casualties, we do not have an accurate method of determining ongoing needs, especially for the reserve force members.

To this end, a post-deployment follow-up project has been designed that will be aimed at implementing some formal follow-ups for at least one year after service on a peacekeeping duty. It will seek to determine the ongoing physical or psychological needs of the member, and possibly his family, and be a conduit for instant referrals for treatment when required.

This type of follow-up will also be suited to determining ongoing physical needs as well. It can bring advocacy efforts on behalf of members who have been injured into sharper focus. We have enough recent documentation to demonstrate that there have been vacuums in that area.

Organizations such as Veterans Affairs within the government and the Royal Canadian Legion from the outside can and do play a vital role in this area. We hope to have this program off the ground this fall.

One must also remember that with operations being beamed into our living rooms instantaneously, our families are living our experiences daily. This help support must also be developed and made available to the member's family.

I'll use the example, if I may, of my own experience during the four months of war in Rwanda. Daily, my wife and children looked at every newscast and heard every radio announcement to find out whether I was killed, injured, a prisoner, or whatever. My mother-in-law, whose husband commanded a regiment in the Second World War, indicated to me upon my return that she had never lived those stresses and strains because the information flow was very limited and sketchy at best.

We have our families now living the missions with us. I can give you as an example the 11 soldiers who were held captive in the Bosnian operations. Their families were living those stresses and watching what was happening to them every moment of the day.

One could extrapolate to say that someday we may have the killing of a soldier, male or female, right in a living room, right in front of the cameras, with the play-by-play being announced and the families watching it live.

In the area of physical casualties, there are a number of Canadian Forces organizations that could be involved in assisting the injured member, from the Canadian Forces medical service to the director general of compensation and benefits and so on. This has sometimes led to confusion, a lack of appropriate care being provided and to a general feeling of being forgotten, which the member develops when questions don't get answered and services aren't provided.

I have heard the criticism and read that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence simply shove their injured off onto the civilian health care system. While the Canadian Forces medical service is committed to providing the best medical care possible, it must make increasing use of civilian health care systems to provide such care. Thus, alternate service delivery must become a viable option for that care.

On more than one occasion I have heard horror stories about how good care and attention was not provided to deserving members, not because DND or the Canadian Forces were negligent and didn't want to, but because of bureaucratic inadequacies.

Another criticism that has been received is that we forget our people after they have been released due to an injury inflicted in the line of duty, and it becomes very difficult for the ex-service member to wade through all the steps and questions relative to either getting a pension, medical care, or other services available to them.

In the case of medical care for personnel no longer serving but who have been injured on the job, gaps have developed in how they assess the services they require. Because of this, there exists the need for the Canadian Forces to be able to identify and pay for the services of those members, both regular and reserve, who have been released but who have not yet been picked up by Veterans Affairs for pension purposes and services. Where the equation breaks down is in coordinating our efforts.

.1600

There are a number of DND and Canadian Forces organizations charged with the responsibility of providing medical care all the way through to pension advocacy. In addition, there are services provided through outside organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion, which assists casualties as well. Be aware, though, that DND and the Canadian Forces do not want to abrogate their responsibilities to their wounded. Morally, they cannot. We therefore must better fulfil this obligation through a much closer working relationship with both Veterans Affairs and the Legion. After all, they are in essence part of the military extended family.

Given this, and along with the initiatives that I mentioned earlier, we will be looking very closely at the establishment of some form of casualty action centre. It will be designed to coordinate all the helping efforts around the needs of our wounded. We are listening to the critiques of our members, and we are prepared to adjust our efforts in responding to that - and we had better. We will not give up on our casualties when they are down and out. I consider this initiative to be of the utmost priority. It is an initiative that must be resolved.

What about all these compensation systems, and how do they work? The Pension Act is the legislation that is designed to recognize the obligation of the people and the Government of Canada to provide compensation, in the form of pensions and other benefits, either to or in respect of veterans of the Canadian Forces who have become disabled or have died as a result of military service. In other words, the act is designed to provide compensation for the extra risks associated with military duty and not life's ordinary risks that everyone is subjected to.

Unlike the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, which requires a contribution based on salary, there are no premiums paid by the member towards the Pension Act. However, all benefits paid under this act are exempt from income tax in the hands of the recipient. These benefits are paid as a matter of right and are not usually affected by other income. Pensions are indexed annually and, based on the consumer price index, are adjusted on January 1. The Pension Act is also the window or gateway through which all other veteran benefits are obtained. Thus, the Pension Act is the obligation of a grateful nation to an individual for services rendered in the defence of Canada.

The Pension Act embodies two basic principles: the insurance principle and the compensation principle. The insurance principle is applied to all claims for death and disability that are attributed to or incurred during military service rendered during World War I, World War II, and by application of the special duty pension order for service in a special duty area.

The compensation principle simply means that through factual and credible evidence, it must be demonstrated that the injury or the disease resulting in disability or death arose out of or was directly connected with military service in peacetime. ``Disability'' is defined in the Pension Act, and it means ``the loss or lessening of the power to will and to do any normal mental or physical act''. The actual determination of what constitutes a disability is governed by Veterans Affairs policy.

The Pension Act is administered solely and exclusively by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and neither DND nor the Canadian Forces has any jurisdiction in the administration of that act. Nevertheless, to ensure the proper and timely adjudication of an application for pension under the insurance principle, National Defence Headquarters - in particular, the director of pensions and social programs, my colleague Ewart - does inform Veterans Affairs Canada of the possibility of a claim and obtains a protected date for application whenever such information is made available. This protected date will become the effective date of entitlement when the application has finally been adjudicated.

.1605

Consequently, it is imperative that our director of pensions and social programs be notified as early as possible of the name and service particulars of the injured member, and the medical conditions for which a disability pension might be claimed. Such notification should be made in the form of a casualty message or using the hotline, which I'll speak of later on.

We haven't been very good at that, and units have not always provided that immediate information so that we can commence the process of potential adjudication for a pension for the individual.

While the director of pensions and social programs, when informed, will obtain a protected date for application for a disability pension, the ultimate responsibility for the application rests with the applicant. That's neat, but ultimately the leadership and the chain of command has a fundamental responsibility there, too.

Applicants may obtain free counselling and assistance in the preparation and submission of their claim from the pension officer of the nearest Veterans Affairs Canada office. Alternately, similar free representation may be obtained from the Royal Canadian Legion, and those organizations in fact do respond. Some even search out cases that have not been reported.

Should it become necessary to consider a pension on behalf of the surviving spouse or children, in respect to those Canadian Forces members who die while serving in a designated special duty area, such applications will be undertaken by the same directorate of pensions and social programs.

In 1997, as an example, the monthly rate of pension for a maximum or a 100% disability of a married person with two children is about $2,500 a month. There is a series of other elements that could be added to that, and we have the technical information here.

When it has been determined that there is an entitlement for a disability pension, the pensioner will be entitled to medical care, through Veterans Affairs Canada, for the pension condition. This is true even when there is no payment of pension authorized. During periods of acute medical care, i.e. while in the hospital, the pension could be increased up to as much as 100%.

In 1991, the gateway program of the veterans independence program, called VIP, was extended to special duty area pensioners. This refers to those in the operations we are involved in at this time and for the last five years or so. This program assists pensioners to remain healthy and independent in their own homes or communities rather than being confined to an institution. The VIP is not intended to replace other federal, provincial, or municipal programs, but is combined with these services to best meet the needs of the pensioner.

The VIP assists with the costs of certain services provided at the client's home, such as grounds maintenance, housekeeping, personal care services, health support services, transportation costs, ambulatory health care, nursing home care, home adaptations, and such.

We have initiated - and it was reported in the media, in fact - the implementation of a disability compensation information advisory cell, which will commence on April 1, 1997. This cell has as a priority the production of an aide-mémoire or booklet outlining the benefits that may be available to members of the Canadian Forces who are released or about to be released as a result of their disabilities. The cell will continue to monitor the hotline, and every assistance will be provided to members of the Canadian Forces who have sustained disabilities.

Any questions dealing with matters other than pension benefits, such as medical care, insurance benefits under our SISIP program, or others, will be referred to the appropriate National Defence Headquarters office for follow-up action.

Nevertheless, this cell should function in close partnership with the recently established Veterans Affairs client-centred service initiative and the service officers of the Royal Canadian Legion. There is an interconnection of these cells so that files are passed on and information is exchanged.

.1610

Compensation for disability in the reserve force. While pensions under the Pension Act are paid by Veterans Affairs Canada, payment of compensation for disability to members of the reserve force is authorized by National Defence Headquarters pursuant to Queen's Regulations and Orders and amplified in our Canadian Forces Administrative Orders, and is paid by the appropriate area comptroller, wherever the militiaperson finds himself or herself.

The intent and spirit of the regulations governing the payment of the compensation for disability for reservists is to compensate the member of the reserve force with any loss of income, in whole or in part, when that member has become disabled as a result of military service and is unable to return to civilian employment.

Compensation for disability is designed as short-term benefit and is paid at the rate of pay that was in effect at the time of the injury or disease giving rise to the disability. The period of incapacity and whether the member is medically fit for continued service must be established in a manner consistent with the Canadian Forces medical policy, of course.

Consequently, Canadian Forces medical standards must be applied to the reservist. This is not a very effective response so far and is subject in fact to much discussion amongst reservists. We certainly can amplify on that during the questions. This has not been a satisfactory area of compensation.

We established a hotline assistance program for the benefit of members of the Canadian Forces - commanding officers and other responsible authorities, as well as dependants of Canadian Forces members. Through this hotline, a 1-800 line, information and guidance may be obtained to ensure that applications for pensions and compensation is commenced as quickly and effectively as possible. This hotline assistance is available throughout Canada from any DND telephone. Personnel serving outside of Canada may contact National Defence Operations Centre in Ottawa and be connected.

Over the last decades we have not handled injured and casualty cases in a most compassionate or holistic fashion. There are significant numbers of ex-servicepersons who have left bitter and rejected. Those still serving have realized this, and it is a concern to their wholehearted dedication to the accomplishment of difficult, demanding training and risky operational missions. It is a fundamental element of the morale and the continued willingness to take risks in difficult and complex operations.

I will attempt to conclude, as I've spoken probably far too long.

The introduction, during these decades of peace, of administrative procedures to ensure that the small forces we have are young, fit, available and unrestricted to operational tasks has affected our compassion, our heart, and established at times considerable bureaucratic ruthlessness. We must put a human face to our processes again. We must remain fair and in conformity to legal procedures, of course, but ultimately remember that soldiers, sailors, and air personnel are people, not killing machines, and as such must be treated with all possible reasonableness by a nation that has basked in peace and serenity, but at the cost of so many and due to so much sacrifice by so many families.

It is our moral obligation to provide our service personnel the best service we can when their military careers are over. It is in our collective interest to do so, and to prepare them for that while they are serving. It is an intimate link of our operational effectiveness when such personnel are able to see that they will not simply be left hanging.

We must incorporate into our military culture once again the realization that there is a moral continuum of responsibility that the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence owes its retiring members. This moral continuum extends well past our legal obligations and ensures a seamless bond between the Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces on the one side and the Department of Veterans Affairs, or Veterans Canada, and the Legion on the other. Only with such a philosophy can we ensure that our people don't fall through the cracks and find hardship and enormous bureaucratic obstacles after years of service and operational commitment to our nation.

.1615

Thus there is an obligation on all three sides of the triumvirate - CF and DND, DVA, and the Legion - to work closely together to ensure that the needs of our service personnel and their families are met. As you can see by the people on each side of me, this rapprochement has already begun.

In the end, we are striving to live up to the obligation that is morally ours to give, that is, to live up to the benchmark established by Prime Minister Robert Borden before the Battle of Vimy in 1917, of which we will be celebrating the 80th anniversary next month. May I quote:

You can go into this action feeling assured of this, and as the head of the government, I give you this assurance; that you have no need to fear that the government and the country will fail to show just appreciation of your service in what you are about to do, and what you have already done. The government and the country will consider it their first duty to...prove to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and empire; and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the government for having broken with the men who won and the men who died.

[Translation]

Madam Chair, thank you for patiently allowing me to make this rather lengthy presentation. I trust that it will be a starting point for our discussions. My colleagues here with me and I are prepared to answer any questions concerning the care given to our veterans, to our injured members and to those who are retiring from the Canadian Forces.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, General.

I would ask Mr. Leroux to commence, for 10 minutes.

[Translation]

M. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair. Fortunately, we heard several words of French at the end of the presentation. Our francophone interpreters were toiling away whereas their English colleagues were able to take a breather. I am very disappointed, as this is not the first time that this has happened. This is the second time that I have had the pleasure of meeting you, Major General Dallaire. Our first encounter was during a meeting of the joint defence committee at which time you also made a unilingual English presentation. Senator De Bané put some questions to you in French and you answered him in French. Liberal MP Robert Bertrand and myself also questioned you in French. I was hoping today to hear a bilingual presentation and I am very disappointed, even outraged! Perhaps this is an indication of what real official languages practices are in the Canadian Forces, but I hope not.

I am disappointed, because Major General Dallaire is a hero of the Rwanda mission and each time he has come here to testify, he has expressed himself in one language only.

I have a question for you and I will be very brief because I am a little emotional. What happens if an officer retires and is subsequently hired on contract by the Department of Defence? This is possible, is it not? Does this officer continue to receive his pension? If he is entitled to a pension, does he receive it in addition to a salary?

MGen Dallaire: I cannot let your initial remark go unanswered. I would like to speak to this issue before answering your technical question.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: By all means.

MGen Dallaire: What you said hits very close to home. My children are 12th generation francophones and since I arrived here today with a unilingual English text, you are completely within your rights to be offended.

.1620

I am not here to tell you about bureaucratic procedures or internal problems which are responsible for the fact that we do not have a French text. I feel personally responsible for not having delivered some or at least half of my presentation in French. I take full responsibility for being ill-prepared today. Your point is well taken and I am personally distressed about this oversight on my part. I do not wish to make any apologies for this or disregard the fact that the background material was unfortunately produced in English only.

In answer to your question, when we retain the services of a person on a contractual basis to work as a consultant, we hire that individual as a private citizen, regardless of whether he has or has not worked previously for National Defence, or for some other provincial department. That person is collecting the pension to which he is entitled and if he provides a service on contract to the Department of National Defence, having been hired through an open contractual process, we pay that person for the work he performs.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: How many people work for National Defence and at the same time benefit from this double dipping?

MGen Dallaire: I don't believe you are thinking logically.

A person who retires from the Canadian Forces after fulfilling his duties is entitled to a pension under existing laws and regulations. If that person has certain abilities and establishes a firm, or if he is hired by a firm which then secures a contract with National Defence, that person is not dealt with any differently than someone who comes over to us from another department and secures a National Defence contract, or who comes to us from another area of the Public Service or from the private sector.

I don't have any figures with me right now. I admit that it would be rather timely to have this information. If you like, we can get it for you.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: I travelled to Bosnia-Herzegovina, I believe in 1994, to meet with Canadian troops. The Canadians had been on duty there for only two weeks and we were therefore not really able to gauge troop morale. It was the month of May and I think that at certain times of the year, things are easier. Peace had been restored somewhat and Prime Minister Chrétien had been by to visit them. We weren't really able to assess the morale of the troops in the field because visitors were stopping by. If I am re- elected and if I serve on the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veteran Affairs, perhaps I will get an opportunity to gauge troop morale in the field after the third month on duty.

I'm not an expert in this area and perhaps this is a good thing because you are the experts here. We are the ones who question you. In my view, we have an army of officials, an army 60,000 members strong, many of whom are senior officers while very few are rank and file soldiers.

I think that Canada is taking on a great deal. Perhaps you cannot comment on this statement, but I find that we are undertaking many missions abroad. Our country has earned an international reputation for itself and has been heavily involved in peacekeeping operations. I think that our army is a little too old. I remember meeting with French soldiers. Most of our CF members are married and already have children. When they depart on peacekeeping missions, they leave behind their spouse and their children.

.1625

To my mind, this a problem in the Canadian Forces. Shouldn't we have a younger army, where the majority of soldiers would enlist for 10 years and then move on to other careers? They could be retrained with our assistance. Shouldn't we have an army trained to do the job? I think that this is the problem; we have an army composed of career soldiers and because of downsizing, all we are left with are senior officers and officers, not soldiers. Although we accept assignments throughout the world, we do not have the personnel to take on the job.

MGen Dallaire: You have raised a number of issues. I will attempt to provide you with some answers.

You have to remember that you are comparing us with a number of European countries that have conscription policies in place. Therefore, there is a high turnover of young people who are drawn to the forces and as such, these countries' armies are being continually renewed, which gives them a youthful appearance. They are in the process of becoming armies composed of career officers and other professional components. Your observations about the higher and lower ranks of our forces will take on a new meaning once these armies have all of the training required to maintain a professional force in operation. It might be a good idea to go back and look at the French, the Dutch and the Italians several years after this transition is completed and examine the makeup of their armed forces then.

Members of our armed forces are on average under 25 years of age. It is also interesting to note that our generals are young, although many already refer to me as an old fogy. Our generals usually retire from the army at the age of 55, whereas our counterparts in other countries are 60, 61, 62 or 63 when they retire. A permanent hierarchy is in place in these countries, whereas we have a turnover of much younger people and follow a different philosophy. It may seem like we have older members, but relatively speaking, I think that overall we have achieved a balance. We will have to wait and see what these other countries will do.

As for the number of generals in the Canadian forces, it is true that this number was higher at certain times than at others. You have to remember that in some countries, an officer is elevated to the rank of general only when he has two stars, whereas in Canada, a person achieves this ranking once he has two maple leafs. In these other countries, persons with the equivalent of one star, that is the equivalent of a brigadier general, are simply referred to as brigadiers and do not achieve the rank of general. An entire level of more junior officers do not qualify to be called generals. Therefore, the numbers that we have may be misleading. Several years ago, we had over 110 generals on staff, whereas today, this figure has dropped to approximately 70. We believe this number will continue to decline and that the proportion could certainly be reviewed once downsizing operations have been completed. Take a look at the structure at DND headquarters, at the responsibilities and levels of authority, both public and military, and at the overall picture.

[English]

The Chair: You can wait for round two.

Mr. Martin, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Keith Martin (Esquimalt - Juan de Fuca, Ref.): Merci beaucoup, madame la présidente. Would this be an appropriate time to bring forth a motion to the committee?

The Chair: No, it would not. You can bring forth a motion to the committee after the witnesses have been heard.

Mr. Keith Martin: Okay.

.1630

Major-General, I'd like to start on a personal note. I'd like to congratulate you on the number of speeches you've made over the last two years in articulating a new vision for Canada's foreign policy that reflects the threats we're all going to be faced with in the 21st century, one that focuses on preventing conflict rather than managing conflict

[Translation]

and which were made in both languages.

[English]

I've listened to them with a lot of happiness. I want to congratulate you, and I hope you continue to do that.

There are a couple of points I'd like to make. I'll divide them into two sections: one is economic and the other is social.

I'd like to say that I live in Victoria, so MARPAC is in my riding.

You've touched on the economic stresses our military is facing, and I needn't state them again. But it seems to me that there are perhaps a number of solutions that might be feasible, and I'd like to have your opinion on them. One is the fact that a number of members moved to Victoria where there are high rents, and they obviously find it very, very difficult to manage. Some of the members are on welfare, as you know. Rolling back the rent increases on the PMQs to the time of the pay freeze in 1992, in my view, would certainly provide them with some economic relief, which is badly needed. In Esquimalt there have been two rent increases over the last 13 months, which they find to be extremely difficult to put up with given the fact that their pay has been frozen since 1992.

The second point in addressing this is whether or not the Department of National Defence is prepared to approach the Minister of Finance and make the accommodation assistance allowance a tax-free allowance for our members. They would not be asking for more money in their pay, but it would again provide them with some economic relief.

The third point I'd like to make has to do with the linking up of the families when they're away. It's very costly, and, as you know, when family members are away for four or five months, it's a very great stress on the family unit. Right now it's costing them and the taxpayers money to travel on commercial flights. I wonder if the military has actually looked into using some existing military aircraft. I don't know whether the Challenger aircraft that was previously used by the cabinet could be brought into service and utilized in order for some of the families to link up with their loved ones half a world away. It would actually save the taxpayers money, rather than using costly flights through commercial airlines.

I'm sorry to fire these at you one after the other, but I'll get my word in while I have a chance.

The Chair: You have 10 minutes.

Mr. Keith Martin: And I'm counting and watching my watch, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Good.

Mr. Keith Martin: The Esquimalt Defence Research Establishment is slated to close, and it is going to be moved to Madam Chair's riding. This is going to be extremely costly. The rationale for moving it is supposed to be economic, but when you bring forth the figures, it's actually going to be extremely costly on a number of levels. The moving costs and the savings are in no way connected. The six new MCDV vessels that are going to be put on the west coast are going to have their capabilities severely compromised by having this research detachment moved out to the east coast, not to mention the fact that our Arctic and electromagnetic research capabilities are basically going to be eviscerated by the move.

The last point I'd like to make has to do with the deployment of our personnel abroad. Are there any restrictions on the deployment of our personnel as to how frequently they can be deployed or the time between one deployment and another for any particular individual?

I think that's probably enough for one go.

MGen Dallaire: I was doing pretty good until you started raising the question about the defence research detachment moving to Madam Chair's riding, and you really want me to touch on that one.

The Chair: Go right ahead.

.1635

If I may break in very briefly, I know it will come as an overwhelming surprise to my colleagues on the opposition side, but I had no knowledge of this until I read it in the paper. I'm delighted it happened.

You're probably using the word ``impugn'' but go ahead.

Mr. Keith Martin: I'm sorry, ``infer''; I wouldn't infer anything else.

MGen Dallaire: Touching them randomly, if that's suitable to you, sir, on the research establishment exercise, we are now compelled to produce what is termed a business plan with a five-year roll-up of costs and trade-offs and so on. These business plans ask: If we do this, does it make sense? Do we save? Do we not save? What are the parameters of it? Some would call them activity plans, but business plans is the term. I would find it very difficult to believe that such a plan had not been produced and in fact articulated to defend the move of this establishment.

That being said, I have no one area of responsibility of authority in regard to that exercise. However, you've stated it, I've noted it, and we'll come back to you with a response in that area.

Again, when I was commanding the Quebec garrison I had a researcher establish the same scenario. We had to go through this whole process, and it involved ten people, but it became a significant decision because it was quite an important laboratory. Of course, there was political involvement in the final decision.

So I'll bring that one back, if I may.

I'd like to hit the PMQ rents and the accommodation allowance. Part of the mandate you have here of the socio-economic needs of the military...is looking at the systems we have in place and whether or not they work and are meeting the needs of our personnel, not necessarily in a historic sense but in terms of whether it is doing it today, how we are going to handle the next millennium, and whether or not we are prepared for that.

In regard to quarters and housing, I believe there was a significant briefing given here last week on that. We have the link with the Central Mortgage and Housing system. It is our benchmark for producing rent levels that are required of our personnel, and we try through the accommodation assistance, the 12.5%, to ease that burden, depending on the milieu and so on.

Esquimalt is a problem area, as you've described. We've had problems in Toronto and other places. There used to be a theory that in the norm, as people would move more, you would have a general balancing out of these sorts of costs. But people are going to move less. We have fewer bases and we're concentrating in bigger bases and bigger garrisons.

With regard to our military quarters in those garrisons for our families, how are we going to continue to maintain and upgrade those? We created the Canadian Forces Housing Agency, which is the instrument to look at that and to bring about the policies needed to be fair, but also to be responsible financially, and also in quality and safety and so on.

You stated one solution, which is to roll back the rents to when the pay was frozen and take a second crack at the accommodation allowance. I would say that touching one element requires you to touch all of the elements. However, that does not preclude local commanders - the chap who's commanding MARPAC - from continuing to raise those concerns, to see how we're adjusting to meet the local concerns and whether or not the system we have is doing it.

You will be going out there, and I believe the question is worthy of a response from the field as to whether or not the system we have in place is fair both to the individual and the system in demanding a reasonable level of rent and providing a reasonable level of service for the individual and his family.

I've given you a real runaround exercise, only to reinforce, if I may, that looking at that in isolation is one element of it. I believe you have to analyse whether the system you have to do this is working.

.1640

Mr. Keith Martin: Would it be possible, Major-General, for a member of your staff to actually answer those questions for the committee?

MGen Dallaire: We can give you those specific answers.

Mr. Keith Martin: For the ones I asked you to the best of your ability, it would be appreciated.

MGen Dallaire: Certainly.

Mr. Keith Martin: Merci beaucoup.

MGen Dallaire: With regard to linking families using military aircraft and deployment restrictions, it is important that not only the spouse but also the children.... I have three kids and a wife. I was overseas for a year. It can overwhelm a little Challenger pretty fast. Our fleet was barely able to keep me...with one aircraft on the ground in Rwanda, repaired and ready to fly. We do not have the fleet capability to handle that.

Secondly, it would not be the best aspect. Flying 13 hours in a Hercules aircraft doesn't make people really very keen on doing that. However, we do provide them with the financial remuneration and the possibility of linking up, and I believe that although it may not be as effective as we want it to be, it is still reasonable. That's what I'm saying - reasonable.

For my family it was critical. For many of my colleagues it was critical that we make a link-up. Is there a more economic way of doing it? You've raised it and I've noted it, but I do believe with the volume....

Take one battalion of 700 people, and they're rotating. They get leave. They try to get a couple of weeks in a six-month tour. When you start moving families around, you get into some pretty big numbers pretty fast. I know our fleets can't meet it. Is there another economic side? don't think so, sir.

With regard to deployment restrictions, if I may comment on tour lengths, yes, we indicated that in fact we were trying to build a tour length where it would be one in six. That is, you are six months out of country, 30 months in country. During your 30 months in country you may be three months in preparation for a next mission, and there is also the month's leave afterwards and rehabilitation.

We've had rotations where people have been barely a year. So our minimum line is a year. We want people to be one year in country before another six-month rotation. We've made some exceptions, 11 months, sometimes 10 months and so on, but we've been holding as tight as humanly possible to the one year in country.

What is critical in this is making sure that in the year in which the individual is back home, all the stresses and strains, the post-traumatic stress, relinking with his family, and so on, is all brought down to a normal level, the way it was before he or she left. If it's not, on that second rotation you're simply building on the stresses and strains from the first one that were not solved. When you continue to build like that you're then creating an exponential problem of morale, stress, and care of the individual.

We need time to bring the people back down to earth, to relink the families, to put the last mission behind them as a family experience, and have a clean slate to relaunch into another one. Twelve months is a minimum.

Mr. Keith Martin: Merci beaucoup.

The Chair: Thank you very much, General.

Now I would ask Ms Phinney from the government side to proceed.

Ms Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair, for allowing me to speak. I'm not a regular member on the committee, but I am a member of the Liberal party.

I want to speak particularly because you must be well aware of the Southam articles that have been in the paper. The MP spoken of in the article is myself. I'm the one who helped get one of your wounded a wheelchair and a ramp. It was Warrant Officer Tom Martineau, who I must add would be the best PR person you could possibly have. He loves the military. I think he has been in for about 18 years, and he would sell it to any young person across Canada. He believes people should go into the military even though both his legs have been shot off.

He's also somebody who, even though he has some complaints - nothing to do with pensions, but just two specific complaints - also has suggestions. It's quite refreshing talking to him. He certainly would be a great PR person for you to send across the country.

.1645

He had three problems. The first one is the lack of care for the wounded, which you have spoken about. He came up originally with this one-stop care unit, and I'm glad to see you people have picked up on this.

The second is inadequate retraining. Once somebody has been wounded, been evaluated, had their rehabilitation, and found out that possibly they can't be rehabilitated to the point where they can be of use to the military, they are put out without any further training, if the rehab has taken long enough. Therefore they are being put out of the military with no particular skill.

This person happens to be very bright and would like to do something with the rest of his life. He's not complaining about the pension he has to live on, but he'd like to do something, and he feels he should be retrained by the military.

The third thing is the idea, which I'll talk about again, that since the Department of National Defence is not equipped and is not there to look after wounded people, we talked about this a lot and came up with the idea of temporarily moving into Veterans Affairs anybody who comes back wounded. I've talked to both our recent ministers about this and also to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. They could be temporarily put in there and given their rehab, since the people in Veterans Affairs know how to find a wheelchair and it doesn't take six months.

It took Mr. Martineau six months to get a wheelchair. The reason that happened was you can't have a wheelchair if you don't have a ramp. So he got a ramp, but the ramp was on his mother's house. He doesn't have a house, because he's been in the military for all these years, so the house he went to was his mother's house. But you can't have a wheelchair if the ramp isn't on your house, so he couldn't have a wheelchair in the military. After six months, we got him a wheelchair, but this took hundreds of phone calls - hundreds of phone calls. Anyway, that's an example.

But Veterans Affairs knows immediately where to find a wheelchair, and they're used to looking after people. The Legion people I've spoken to across Canada all just are shocked when I tell them this story. They've spoken to this person and feel they could handle these affairs.

So if this person is taken from Defence and put temporarily into Veterans Affairs, then if he's rehabilitated, fine, he's put back in his unit or put into another unit, but if it's decided that he has to be discharged, then he stays under Veterans Affairs. This is an idea he has come up with and people seem to think it's a good idea.

I met on September 25 with Secretary of State MacAulay and with officials from National Defence. The person who's looking after the 1-800 number you were talking about for the one-stop is, I think, Lieutenant-Colonel Desautels. He was very frank and said you people were trying to set this unit up as soon as possible. As a matter of fact I met with him September 25 and we had a telephone number on October 9. The trouble is there's nothing at the end of the 1-800 number. There is no help; there is nobody there who has all the answers. So you have a long way to go. The telephone number is set up, but there is no service.

You've said in the papers here, if the quote is correct, that this service will be ready by summer. Here you said to us it will be ready by this fall. I'm getting a little discouraged. I was happy to hear that you're setting up this one-stop facility, but now it's gone from last fall to this summer to next fall. Could you give me some idea of when this would be set up and answer the other two questions regarding what you can do about somebody leaving and not having any skill and what you think of his idea of moving the wounded into Veterans Affairs?

MGen Dallaire: Thank you very much for those points.

At the present time the person at the other end of that phone, the 1-800 line, is this gentleman, Ewart, who, as I described earlier on, is the resident memory bank of this whole dimension in regard to the pension compensation and adjudication and taking care of our personnel. He's holding the fort as we are attempting to hire the people to be at the end of the phone. You're quite right about the summer and the fall, but we have it in line. We have a temporary scenario and we're moving towards hiring someone to do it.

The element in the hiring - and I must say the phone was the easiest thing - is the knowledge base needed to be able to respond to the complexities of what we're speaking of. That's what we're building up now. We're trying to get that information flow.

.1650

I'll let Ewart respond more specifically to that, if I may.

Ms Beth Phinney: Major-General, you have that skill under Veterans Affairs. I hope you don't waste it.

MGen Dallaire: No; we will in fact respond.

With regard to the reskilling, in the text I indicated that we're not even doing a good job taking care of those who are leaving because of the termination of their contract. We introduced the 20-40 program. We have SCAN, which is picking up a lot of the area. However, we never had it in our philosophy to say to a corporal at 15 years' service, listen, you will not get beyond 20 years right now - you will not get beyond that - so we will reduce the number of postings and assist you in aligning you into another skill set so that at the end of the five years you have left, you're in the area generally where you want to live - I'd hope that could be worked out - your wife probably still has a job there, and we've given you a skill set to launch into a new career.

We never went the extra mile to do that - we've been attempting it and trying to do that - let alone, as you're saying, reskilling an individual, from being an infanteer, say, or an artillery person, like I've been, into a skill set - with a disability, probably - marketable on civilian streets. I think we can also respond a bit more to that aspect. That is a weakness.

Regarding the hand-off, this is where we've been failing. The articles are absolutely full of this. How are the hand-offs? What are the follow-ups? How have we been doing? This is not just technical stuff about people doing their bureaucratic responsibilities according to the rule of law. A lot of human stuff didn't happen there.

That is to say, how did commanders, people who have the responsibility of the leadership of these people, respond after 40 years of peace where, you know, so-and-so got loaded on Friday night at happy hour and smashed his car and is now injured? That's not necessarily like the cases we have, but did we adjust to this changed scenario? Why didn't we adjust? How have we not been taking care of both the individual in the past and in his current life?

That is a big mea culpa on the part of the chain of command. We have had a number of injured people. We've talked of over 1,200 or 1,300 at different levels who have submitted claims. We have a number with post-traumatic stress. What that figure is now we don't know yet. We're still waiting for the impacts of some of this and how we're reacting to it.

How are we adjusting to that? We've done well in many cases, but there have been cases that have not been effective at all. That must be rectified.

So your option of a better way of hand-off...we proposed a much better, tighter coordination of capability with a reassessment internally of how, from a medical side, we go to pensions and compensations and so on, and how that side is handled so that people are not simply passed on from one office to another through the process.

If I may, I would like to turn to some of my colleagues to also respond to your questions.

Ewart, if you will.

Mr. Ewart Thornhill (Section Head, Investigations - Injuries and Pensions, Pensions and Social Programs, Personnel, Department of National Defence): You mentioned earlier the toll-free number. This cell is merely a continuation of that number. That number has been in effect for more than three years. I've been at the end of that number for a good many years.

I've spoken to most of the wounded soldiers at one time or another. Most of the cases have come to me long after they've experienced some of their problems, and we've solved their problems at that time. But as the general said in his opening remarks, unless we are aware of the circumstance that might give rise to a problem, we can't do much with it.

Ms Beth Phinney: If a wounded person comes back from Bosnia and is in our military hospital here, why wouldn't you hear about it? I mean, this person has his legs blown off and you don't even know? Nobody in the military knows? Maybe that's one of the holes you have to plug.

.1655

Why wouldn't you be contacted immediately and be told here's a person you have to look after for the next three years, until he's rehabilitated? Maybe he needs to be told in his ill state in the hospital what your 1-800 number is. I'm not quite sure, however, why he should be responsible for phoning you. I would think somebody in the military should be responsible to let you know that this person will need your help to get out of the hospital because he can't get a wheelchair, because he can't get around, can't get this and can't get that, and nobody else in the military knows how to get it.

Why say he didn't call you and tell you all his problems? No, he didn't call you, because he didn't have the number until after he'd made 200 phone calls, because nobody else knows what's going on.

Mr. Thornhill: This is quite true. I think probably I misled you when I said we weren't aware. I was aware of his condition from day one. On the first day following his injury there was an application for a pension made on his behalf.

Ms Beth Phinney: He's not worried about pensions. He's worried about getting a wheelchair.

Mr. Thornhill: I know, but the wheelchair wasn't a topic until the injured person called me. So I wasn't aware of that -

Ms Beth Phinney: He had called many people before you.

Mr. Thornhill: Yes, I know. I appreciate that. But there was no problem after he called me. We found a source for it and got it sorted out.

As I said, until those individual problems are voiced, we don't follow the client all the way through.

Ms Beth Phinney: Why not? You asked this man to give up his life and go fight for our country and you - or somebody - can't follow him all the way through? That's where the holes are. They give up their life to go over there.

Mr. Thornhill: That's very true. I agree with you. That's the responsibility of the commanding officer.

Ms Beth Phinney: Well, it's somebody's responsibility.

MGen Dallaire: Let me step in again and reinforce what I indicated to you earlier, that we've had injured people in training for years. We've had injured people in operations on board ships. We've had boilers blow up, we've had aircraft crash, and we've had accidents on ranges and operations in Germany and so on in many of our operational areas. They were handled within the context of the garrisons; peace; back home. They're either in their garrison areas or brought back in very exceptional cases.

What we've had since Oka in 1990 is a whole different set of circumstances. The question is, did we adjust to that set of circumstances - the rhythm, the tempo, the numbers - and were people in our processes followed as people throughout, or were there hand-offs, technical...this is my bailiwick, and so on?

You've hit it right on the head. In terms of the command chain and those who have that responsibility and authority for command, how is that follow-up done? Were they following it up or were these people treated as just Joe Blow, who got loaded Friday night? Now I have only 700 people in my battalion, say, and I have all these taskings, and if I move him to the manpower overhead list, which then moves him out of the battalion, I can get in somebody new, who's fit, and we can keep on doing our job.

By the by, when I hand him or her over, who am I handing him or her over to, and what's the process? That's where all of a sudden the mea culpa is. You've hit it.

So it's not just between the three of us, DVA, the Legion, and us, but it's been internally, before in fact the individual is handed over to DVA or in fact to the Legion. In many cases we've seen the Legion intercede even earlier than needed. That human side, that compassion side, that follow-up side: I mean, the other young chap, Anderson, says he didn't have a visitor for four months.

The Chair: If I may, I'll jump in at this point, General, as we've gone way over our time. Ms Phinney rarely comes to the defence committee, and I thought I'd give her some leeway.

Yes, you can have leeway too, in a minute.

To follow up a bit, you said it was the responsibility of the CO. Then you made the comment about shifting the person out and getting somebody in. Will there be now some type of continuity, or can this happen again tomorrow?

.1700

MGen Dallaire: Madam Chair, why in hell did it happen in the first place?

The Chair: Hey, that's my question. I want to know if it's going to happen again.

MGen Dallaire: That's true. I'm supposed to be answering here.

The Chair: Don't worry, I'll keep you in line.

MGen Dallaire: That is it. Will it happen again?

I must say, we have been picking up a lot of these things. I spent three hours this morning with the Chief of Defence Staff, in fact, dissecting a lot of this stuff.

The commander of the army, Jean Baril, has raised a number of these points in the case of a Major Henwood, and a couple of other cases, saying, how is all this happening? There is a real prise de conscience needed by us in command, not by staff. Staff are there to support command. They have the rules and so on. They're there to do their job. There is a human face that has to be put there at times. However, commanders can't simply Pontius Pilate themselves from a time of responsibility because they've passed it on to someone else.

The Chair: With the greatest of respect, General, what I'm trying to get at is, do you now have something that will catch this?

MGen Dallaire: Right now? No, Madam. That's exactly the point being raised from these experiences. Does the garrison commander pick up from that? Is it the local commander?

May I say, we're talking here of regular force people. The reservist is certainly not simpler, in any way, shape, or form. How are we picking up on that, and how are the transitions of that going on?

It was interesting to note that if the individual, Warrant Officer Martineau, had been released earlier, he would have been able to get a wheelchair much easier. That means we didn't have the tools to handle that phase.

Why didn't we have that tool? How many times? Did we acknowledge it? Have we adjusted to it? Did the base commander adjust? Is he going to take $1,000 from his base duty and put a ramp in a house downtown? Is he allowed to do that? No. If he is not allowed to do it, what system is, and why do we end up with this absolute foolishness?

On the peacetime answer -

The Chair: You don't have an answer now, so maybe we'll come back.

MGen Dallaire: You're absolutely right. You've raised it, and I would be lying through my teeth if I said we have it sorted out, because we don't. But a reassessment by the chain of command of the through-put responsibilities of these people is one of the major cruxes of this exercise. Watch me.

The Chair: All right. That's it, Beth. You're over the top.

Monsieur Leroux.

[Translation]

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: MGen Dallaire, could we possibly have copies of your notes because they contain quite a bit of information. Would this be possible?

MGen Dallaire: Yes.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: You mentioned the reserves. I would like to talk about the reserves because I think that this is a problem area. First of all, does anyone in your entourage represent the reserves?

MGen Dallaire: My assistant, Lieutenant Culliton, is an officer in the reserve naval forces.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: That's interesting. As you know, when we deploy missions, we fill vacancies with reservists. Reserve personnel are often looked upon as a second class army. This view is prevalent in a number of fields, among others in the field of education in Quebec. During their first 10 years on the job, teachers have a tenuous status and they do not have any rights. At the end of each year, they are let go. It's somewhat the same thing in the reserve army.

In your view, what should be done? Reservists have a major role to play; they are present throughout Canada and Quebec, in the large as well as the smaller cities. When people see the Canadian Armed Forces, what they are often seeing are reservists. What do you intend to do about this perception of reservists or what do you feel should be done to give them the salary and working conditions they deserve, and perhaps the opportunities for advancement which would make this a viable option for them as well?

I think we must begin by resolving the problem of the low wages earned by those who join the Armed Forces. I earn perhaps twice what my neighbour earns. With twice the salary, I am able to do a little more than he can. MPs, as you know, do not earn big salaries. We earn about half of what you earn. What concrete action could be taken to ensure that reservists are proud of belonging to the Armed Forces? We ask a great deal of them; should we not give them more in return?

.1705

MGen Dallaire: I can tell you about a report released last year by Judge Dickson and General Belzile on the restructuring of the reserves.

I'm also told that the minister, as he announced when he appeared before you, will be taking a look at the reserves in a report that he is preparing with a view to clarifying the status of the recommendations made by the special commission on the restructuring of the reserves. The report will examine the actions that have been taken by the major players and by senior officials.

Regarding reservists and their working conditions, you are entirely correct in saying that they are often treated as part-time employees, in the pejorative sense of the word. We often try to get as much from them as we can while at the same time paying them as little as possible.

Although we recently increased reservists' salary to 85 per cent of the salary of regular forces members, we have also modified their retirement conditions and the compensation they receive upon returning home after being wounded. We are in the process of reexamining these new conditions. As I mentioned in my presentation, some improvements are in order.

Why do we appear to be lagging behind in this area? Only since our involvement in operations in the last five years have our reservists really been viewed as critical to our ability to carry out our missions. For many years, people looked upon reservists as a problem. I started out in the reserves and my son is currently a second lieutenant in the Quebec Voltigeurs. Reservists didn't begin to get the recognition they deserved for their contribution to the army as a whole. The 20,000 regular forces personnel are considered to be the army, despite the fact that there are approximately 20,000 reservists as well. This brings our armed forces personnel to 40,000. Should we be saying then that we have an army of 40,000, or an army of 20,000, plus a bunch of reservists? If our reservists are more than just a small group, we must ensure that they receive fair treatment and that they are properly prepared, equipped and trained.

The past five years have demonstrated to us that the presence of reservists is absolutely vital if we are to carry out our overseas mission. Reservists apparently account for up to 20 per cent of troop strength during these operations, although in some cases, this proportion rises to 37 per cent.

Among other things, in the Medac pocket, the site of a major operation in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the focus of much media attention, many reservists were on the front line and fought and defended themselves admirably. We are working to erase the negative perception that some people have of reservists who are looked upon as part-time employees. Our approach is based on the restructuring proposals made by the commission. Several of the 20 or so recommendations have already been implemented, whereas others are being developed. The problem has yet to be resolved, but we have to change this "we versus they" attitude which still prevails.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: Suppose a reservist and a member of the regular forces are travelling together in a Jeep in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Suppose both of them are injured and rendered virtually helpless for a period of time. Will they both receive the same treatment and will they have the same rights?

MGen Dallaire: It all depends on whether they regain their physical and psychological health and return to the labour force. If that were the case, then there would be no problem.

Mr. Jean H. Leroux: Otherwise, you take that person under your wing?

MGen Dallaire: The person would then be entitled to a disability pension. My colleague can explain this further to you.

.1710

[English]

Lieutenant-Colonel Rick McLelland (Chief, Health Services, Department of National Defence): May I answer in English?

Mr. Jean Leroux: Of course, of course. I'm as fluent as the general.

LCol McLelland: As I understand your question, if a reservist and a regular force person were in a jeep and they both got hurt, the commitment we have in terms of providing the medical care is consistent. They both will get the same medical care, period.

Mr. Jean Leroux: For the rest of their lives, if they're unable to go back to work?

LCol McLelland: Well, we have to temper that. They get the medical care, we try to rehabilitate them, and then we must, if they cannot be continuously employed, pass them to DVA for that.

Mr. Jean Leroux: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle, Lib.)): Thank you.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to stick with the reservists for a second. As my colleague Mr. Leroux was saying, a lot of our peacekeeping personnel are reservists, and I just wonder, General, when they come back to Canada, are they expected to immediately reintegrate into the normal world, or are there efforts made to debrief and counsel them? Also, what is the timeframe for their release from service?

MGen Dallaire: I must say that when we started this, when I was still commanding my brigade in Valcartier in 1992-93, there was about a three-week post-deployment leave provided and then essentially we said thank you very much and carry on back to your regiment or to your militia unit. Then the individual returned to normal duty in his militia unit on class A, which is evenings and weekends.

When we started to grasp more the whole concept of post-traumatic stress disorder and the possibilities of that from these complex operations and so on - and Colonel McLelland was instrumental in getting this - the first thing we did was extend it for the reservists to a minimum of a month after deployment. So we do have a chance to interview him or her, go through the process, and identify, through the chain of command, if there are any signs of any problems or potential problems that may be recurring. Then the individual is sent back to his normal place of work or study and his regiment.

As a past area commander...I've commanded the Quebec area, which was the reservists and regulars. In the units, we launched a program where every unit was to have two persons qualified in discerning areas such as post-traumatic stress disorder and being a reference point for those people. If they discerned any problem, they were to bring it up the chain of command and then we'd bring them back in.

Has that worked all the time? No, it hasn't, and in certain cases -

Mr. Bob Wood: Why not? Why hasn't it worked?

MGen Dallaire: Well, in some cases we haven't identified it. Qualified people we had there haven't been replaced, because the commanding officer hasn't sent a new team in to get trained. In other cases - and this is where the real vulnerability is - sometimes they simply release themselves from the reserves, our turnover rate being that, and then they fall into the general population.

I will not hide that I've had cases reported to me where a reservist went to a military hospital seeking assistance and his officer subsequently went to the hospital seeking assistance for this individual and they were turned away, because the rules were that a reservist who is not employed full-time must go through the normal civilian hospital system. Of course when these sorts of scenarios started to come to our ears, we said this makes no sense, particularly if the disorder was caused by the individual having been committed to an operational theatre.

Mr. Bob Wood: Has that been changed now or are you still working on it?

MGen Dallaire: We're educating our people that yes, they are to respond to that requirement. Where we do have a problem is when the person is totally out of the forces - that is, not a reservist any more - and then seeks that help. Again we're into this area of who takes care of it? Do we hand it over to the provincial systems? Should we have a responsibility?

.1715

We've noticed in a number of militia units where they've had soldiers in these operations, they have built a capability of taking care of that, but I'm afraid that can be called spotty.

LCol McLelland: I think one of the Achilles heels we have in respect of dealing with that issue is just the follow-up. What happens if a private or a corporal, or whatever, from Hoboken in northern Saskatchewan, if there is a Hoboken up there -

A voice: No.

LCol McLelland: Okay. What happens if he goes back to his unit and gets out, as the general says? How do we ascertain his or her needs in that regard?

I have a strong feeling that this post-deployment follow-up program we're initiating will tap that at the three-, six-, and nine-month levels. If Boggins wants to get out and he's suffering from some psychological or other casualty as a result of his service to us and he disappears into northern Saskatchewan or northern Alberta, how do we get at him to determine that? I think this is going to do a great deal towards doing that.

Mr. Bob Wood: I have just one more question.

I guess one of your main jobs, in your post in personnel, is to maintain and build morale. I think we believe our purpose here is to try to create the circumstances for soldiers and their families to be satisfied with their working and living conditions. What do you think is the most important issue that determines morale? Is it wages, housing, better communication, or is it something else? General, could you recommend an area or topic we should specifically address more closely?

MGen Dallaire: If you're asking for a specific project or object that will make the difference, you could concentrate on that. If people say money is the most critical asset, you could easily say it's pay, compensation, and being treated fairly.

However, I would raise it to another plane, if I may. I think it is absolutely fundamental, and it's why I've applauded the initiative of this committee to take on this significant task, which hasn't been done, if ever.

Mr. Bob Wood: Since the 1970s, I guess.

MGen Dallaire: The military personnel want to know where they really stand with the nation, with its Parliament and its representatives. That's the ultimate.

Imagine, sir, that we are now sending troops and have been sending troops into harm's way, into war zones. I've been in war. The country's at peace but the troops are in war zones doing duties this nation believes are essential to our ultimate security and the betterment of the world. I applaud that leadership role we have. We who have so much should in fact be doing that.

However, how do you reaffirm to those soldiers and their families that those sacrifices and risks are simply not being acknowledged by some sort of a compensation package? In fact this nation believes that the quality of life and the care and concern for that individual and his family, because of the risks they're involved in - be it on a ship in the Adriatic, in a Hercules aircraft landing in Rwanda, or on the ground in Bosnia, being blown away - are fundamental requirements of its military, for the betterment of this nation. This nation knows that and is ready to articulate a fair transaction, contract, or arrangement with those individuals.

We haven't had that articulation. Bring it to a higher plane that says this nation should state this to its military. We should use that as a reference for the encouragement of our people still serving, for the sacrifices and preparations of families to go through those separations and risks, and to entice the youth of this nation serve in the future.

What is encouraging my son, who is the fourth generation on my wife's side and the third generation on my side, to want to continue to serve the flag of this nation? That's what I think your ultimate aim should be.

.1720

The Americans are good at that. If it's just one paragraph and we can plaster it in every barracks, headquarters, and unit that says this is what the nation thinks you should get for the sacrifices and what you're doing for it, you would have moved enormous roads ahead of where we are now.

Your colleague talked about a lot of bureaucrats, and we are sort of a bureaucratic army. To other people we're wackos, and some people think the less they hear about us the better. I think at least a general statement is needed.

Mr. Bob Wood: You've been there for a number of years. What do you think? You're in charge of personnel. That's your job, to try to build morale, and that's our job too. If we work together, how do we do this? That's what we're trying to do. You must have some thoughts on that.

MGen Dallaire: Are you going into the specifics of how to handle that?

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

MGen Dallaire: I have, as my colleagues also have, some thoughts. I return to my high plane, the recognition of what it is. We, the Canadian people, the Canadian nation, Parliament, say this is what we should have as a statement of what these people in uniform should be getting in support to be able to accomplish their missions. That's the first statement.

In the second statement we can get into a whole bunch of stuff about how we make the structures of peacetime capable of handling operations that are committing our people and our families to dangerous operational areas, even in peacetime. That's the support to the families, the consciousness that he or she will not have a second war when he comes home, a second battle. He's fought one battle. Once he's home we take care of him. We take over from there.

My father spent 20-odd years discussing with DVA a 5% or 10% pension. I remember him doing that for years. My father-in-law did the same for years. There has to be a better way of indicating to them that this is not a battle that has to be won. On the contrary, we want to build a more humane and responsive system to them.

Knowing the difference between us and the general population does not mean isolation from it. When Madam Latulippe's husband is gone for a third tour, be it on a ship, a Hercules crew, in a battalion or a regiment, she lives in downtown Loretteville. On one side there may be a bureaucrat from the provincial government who comes home every night and is there on the weekends, and next door there may be someone from a trade who's there regularly. She is alone to do all the maintenance, the bills, this and that.

She may feel alone, those kids are alone, and from the general population there may be nothing but outright antagonism. She may have no repère, no place to regain a sense of comfort. If she and her husband are prepared to go through those sacrifices - and the kids - to live in that environment, and we don't have the instrument to respond to that - be it more PMQs, more personal service support systems close to our bases and their garrisons to be more attentive and have the resources to ensure this happens - we're going to lose good people. We have lost, and we may risk losing a lot more, good people.

My greatest fear, sir, is not just those serving today. Are we going to have good people join us in the future? Will they want to serve? Are we meeting their expectations and challenges?

When you hit the road, I'm sure you will get the specifics you search for, but the higher-plane argument must be articulated by this committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Thanks.

Mr. Bob Wood: Sorry, Mr. Chairman, I overstepped my bounds in time. But I appreciate your answer.

MGen Dallaire: I'm sorry for my short answer.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Thank you.

I still have Mr. Richardson and Mr. Collins for very quick questions.

.1725

Mr. John Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo, Lib.): They may be quick questions, but I'm not so sure about the answers.

Certainly, particularly for those in combat arms, the most important morale factor to the soldier was to know if there was an evacuation process in order and if there were going to be medics available for them. It was always on their minds that if they were injured, what would happen to them. That was in wartime.

We're now in peacetime, and it's a little bit more disjointed because of the infrequency of rotation, etc. But it should still be instilled into them about following that wounded soldier from the time he is evacuated by the medic, and if he is going to be incapacitated, his long-term recovery, etc.

That morale factor is still out there. If the word gets back that some are not being handled well now, there will be a lot of questioning about people wanting to serve offshore in the name of Canada.

I understand you have things in place and the forces are doing their very best to cope with this new phenomenon in peacetime of being faced with dangerous activities through mines, small arms fire, mortar fire, etc. With the cases I've had brought before me from other members, it seems that when a person comes back and has lost a hand or something else, they have to leave the forces because of the universality aspect, whether they can do the job with all capacity. Once they receive the prosthesis or anything else, they are then turned over to DVA.

There is a step missing. Everyone, including everybody in this room, wants to feel they are a citizen of Canada. They want to feel worthwhile, to make a contribution. They want to be retrained so they can go out and be a father, serve the family, or make a living.

The moneys we have in DND can't buy that kind of thing unless there is a method by which we can tap into the new Employment Canada program. They're running all kinds of retraining programs on regular schedules throughout Canada. I don't know if DND has the capability of making that tap-in there, but those people would feel so much better. They have their prosthesis. They're now going to be retrained in a program where they don't have all those universal capabilities, but they're capable of making contributions. Their egos will feel much better because they're Canadians making contributions.

I wish you could work that into the system somehow, because the only shortfall I've met so far is that step. I don't know if you can set up your own, because it's expensive. I think you should find out if you can buy into employment insurance, as they call it now, or Employment Canada's retraining programs, because their raison d'être now is to retrain people so they can be ready for jobs in the future.

MGen Dallaire: Yes, sir. I'm going to ask both Bernard and Jim to comment on the retraining aspects. I will also ask my colleague from the SISIP program, Mr. David Roberts, to give you some of the technical aspects, because one of the questions is whether DND does that. Should DND be doing that, or is it at that hand-off point? Let me ask them first to comment.

Mr. Bernard Butler (Legal Adviser, Resource Centre, Department of Veterans Affairs): I think, General, on the retraining side, that is something SISIP is probably more involved with than Veterans Affairs.

As you know, certainly there was a retraining program for many years after the war. This ended over the last number of years, as we presumably moved away from this very type of injury, which we're now starting to see as the role of our forces tends to change and is becoming more vulnerable to this type of catastrophic injury. You cited the case of losing a limb, and so on.

Once Veterans Affairs picks up the clients as they're released from service, there are many treatment and pension benefits available, but on the retraining side there is not a whole lot available. I think, however, members you refer to would normally be picked up through the SISIP program, and perhaps you may wish to speak to that.

.1730

Mr. David W. Roberts (President, Service Income Security Insurance Plan (SISIP)): To begin with, SISIP is a service income security insurance plan that is part of the Canadian forces. We have a long-term disability plan. The regular force members participate on a compulsory basis. Reserve force members participate on a voluntary basis. In fact, about 25,000 of the regular force participate on a voluntary basis.

The majority of the regular force, if you will, have long-term disability coverage. If they have a claim - and this is subsequent to leaving the force - and their claim is approved, that opens doors with respect to rehabilitation. I have over 700 claimants at this point and about 350 of them are in retraining or some type of rehab, which might be part-time work, going to college...there are a multitude of activities we're involved in with those people.

There is some opportunity with respect to the employment insurance insofar as those people who do not have long-term disability coverage, and there are people who do not have it. Those people would fall through the cracks in that particular context. There may be some opportunities there.

In terms of those people who have long-term disability coverage with us, there are opportunities for rehabilitation. In fact, some of the people who are currently in the papers, if you will, are already involved.

MGen Dallaire: That's why Martineau would have had his wheelchair. If he had been released, he would have had it from him. But he was with us. We were not in the same scenario.

Mr. John Richardson: I think everybody in the reserves should sign up before they go, if they're going -

Mr. Roberts: We endeavour to get them to sign up.

MGen Dallaire: But because of their pay and so on, it was difficult for us to impose it on them.

Mr. Roberts: That's right.

Mr. John Richardson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Bernie, do you have a question?

Mr. Bernie Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain, Lib.): Thank you very much. I apologize for being late. I found the discussion interesting.

You mentioned suicides and you said there may be 60. I wonder if there are some statistics there that indicate whether over a period of time some of these people might have had so much stress that they fell into the crack of suicide.

MGen Dallaire: No, sir. In fact, we conducted a comprehensive study on that. The results were published last fall, with the data of all the people who have been committed in these operations, and they indicated that there was no intimate link between those missions and suicide rates as such. However, I will not hide that my personal experiences won't necessarily exclude that option when you live with some of the stresses you have gone through.

I think we are into a new generation of veterans. It is not just the physical aspects. The post-traumatic stress casualties are going to be much more significant than the physical ones. The stuff we're seeing out there now.... I'll take any film of the Second World War and any of the concentration camps and put them up against a lot of the stuff many of us have been through. It's a whole different set -

Mr. Bernie Collins: As an educator for 32 years, I can assure you, sir, that if I had to say to students, on the opinions that you get from the public.... Some people are self-defeating for their own purposes when they create an image that unfortunately a lot of people have to live with. I would be hard pressed to say to people that based on the information available you should get into the army, air force, or navy. I think it's incumbent on us, and I think this is the platform to do it.

I can't ask any reservist to go out and put his neck on the line and know that when he comes back to the regular army we're not going to treat him fairly. I don't want to have a guy go to the DVA and hassle them. I think it's incumbent that it's there. I think, as John said, at the end of his time, when he is through, we should be supplying him with the opportunity to go out into the workforce and be like anybody else. We don't have it, and no wonder we don't have it. That's our problem. But I think we're going to work with you, and at the end of the day we will succeed.

.1735

MGen Dallaire: Sir, in the next months we are going to have our own casualties considered as priorities for employment as disabled people in the Public Service of Canada, which has a policy of hiring disabled people. So we have a lot...and this committee will help us enormously to go down that road.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Robert Bertrand): Thank you very much, MGen Dallaire. We would also like to thank the other witnesses here with you this afternoon.

[English]

I know your thoughts and your comments are going to be greatly appreciated for our report. Thank you very much.

This meeting stands adjourned to the call of the chair.

Return to Committee Home Page