STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 7, 1998

• 1802

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our town hall meeting. My name is Robert Bertrand. I chair the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs. As you're aware, we are travelling across the country visiting military bases to find out how to improve quality of life for our military personnel.

I always start by introducing the MPs who are with us this evening. I will start this time with Mr. Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): My name is Ghislain Lebel, and I am the MP for the riding of Chambly, on the south shore of Montréal.

[English]

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Good evening. My name is David Price. I'm the member from Compton—Stanstead and the defence critic for the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Leon Benoit, deputy defence critic for the Reform Party and member of Parliament from Lakeland, Alberta. The Cold Lake base is in my constituency.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Art Hanger. I'm the Reform Party defence critic and my riding is Calgary Northeast.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Hec Clouthier. I'm the member of Parliament for the riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm Judi Longfield. I'm the member from Whitby—Ajax, just east of Metropolitan Toronto. I'm a Liberal.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): I'm David Pratt. I'm the Liberal member of Parliament for Nepean—Carleton.

Ms. Wendy Lill (Dartmouth, NDP): Hello. I'm Wendy Lill. I'm the member of Parliament for Dartmouth. I'm very glad to be here tonight to hear some of the concerns of my riding. I'm actually an alternate on this committee. I am replacing Chris Axworthy, who is the representative on the defence committee. I felt it would be more appropriate for me to be here tonight so that's why I'm here. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We have a few housekeeping items.

[Translation]

If any of you need interpretation devices,

[English]

they are at my extreme right here, where the other clerk is. You can just go and ask and you will be given one.

The second thing I would like to mention is that because of the number of witnesses who have briefs to present, we will limit it to about five minutes per presentation. Once you hit the five minutes, I will give you the sign and you can wrap it up from there.

• 1805

I will also mention to my honourable colleagues that the five minutes for question period will also apply.

If everyone understands the process, I will now call on the first witness, Mrs. Susan Riordon.

Mrs. Susan Riordon (Individual Presentation): Good evening, committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening.

I'm Susan Riordon. I'm here legally to represent my husband, retired Captain Terry Riordon. I am the holder of power of attorney in care and custody of this man. I'm also here to represent our entire family.

Because time is short, I will go directly to Veterans Affairs decision number 6044570, dated August 7, 1996. This document demonstrates our welcome to Veterans Affairs:

Major Depression

The evidence establishes that there was no abnormality recorded regarding your psychological health until you answered a Gulf War Questionnaire in February 1995.

Obstructive Lung Disease

Not pensionable.

You first complained of shortness of breath in February 1995 when you completed a Gulf War Questionnaire Form.

Both applications for pensions were denied despite medical evidence in Veterans Affairs' possession. The decision was signed by J.B. Creamer, Pension Services, Charlottetown, P.E.I.

These rulings reflect a lack of consideration of medical documentation and are unprofessional and personally offensive. At that time, Veterans Affairs had the post-gulf medical of March 1991 with other documentation, including the well-mentioned Gulf War questionnaire of February 1995. These have been overruled in two review boards.

Knowing that time is short, I would appreciate your going to page 4 of the Gulf War illness report done by Donald and William Scott. The report was submitted to the Honourable Allan Rock on November 27, 1997. I'm concerned with page 4 because it contains an interview with Lieutenant Colonel Ken Scott, head of the military medical Gulf War clinic in Ottawa.

On April 23, 1997, when he was interviewed, Ken Scott denied knowledge of Dr. Joseph, his American counterpart. He stated that the Gulf War advisory committee had not met for over a year. When asked, “Have you ordered any MRIs for any of the Gulf War veterans?”, Ken Scott responded with “No. Why should we? Gulf War illness is an imaginary disease and an MRI would show nothing.”

I present to you five separate diagnoses of Gulf War syndrome. Apparently it's all in our imagination. Three of these are signed by Ken Scott himself.

Further, Terry was subject to two MRIs while in the clinic. In front of you, you have one dated 1995. There is another one from 1996 and other documentation.

Who is this officer answerable to? He runs the military Gulf War clinic. He is an unofficial Gulf War veteran himself, but he is not forthright with reports going to the Minister of Health. He's not forthright with those who go to him. He's not compassionate in his dealings with unofficial Gulf War veterans. He misdiagnosed my husband with epilepsy and other illnesses. Ken Scott should be accountable and reported to the Canadian Association of Physicians for his unprofessional conduct.

Gulf War veterans, who are all unofficial because we do not recognize the Gulf War as a country, went to the clinic. They were all treated with disdain, disregard, and were made to feel embarrassed for coming forth.

• 1810

My husband was notified Christmas Day at 10 o'clock in the morning, 1990, of this deployment, without staff support to provide security and safety for our military members in the gulf. Within 34 hours he was gone. He was honoured to serve his country. He and many other Canadian Forces members who were deployed are now paying the price for their service to Canada: a life sentence. Dignity and health have been stripped from him. Now he exists. He has no quality of life and no hope for the future.

Terry's illness has left our children and me emotionally distressed. Now I'm a caregiver. I'm not a wife; we have no marriage. This family has paid the ultimate price. Terry himself feels he would have been better treated if he had returned home from the gulf in a body bag.

Why is it that our country will not stand with us in our hour of need? Veterans Affairs is a minefield. As I speak, Terry's pension is under complete and total review. The outcome will not be known for one to three months due to misplaced paperwork—medical documentation that was misplaced at Veterans Affairs. It's not new to me. Misplaced files, unreturned calls, constant delays are standard. I am the sole paper fighter for the military and Veterans Affairs.

As a former military wife, I am ashamed, not only of the way our family has been treated by this country's agencies, but the treatment of all of our ill and forgotten lost soldiers. I appeal to each one of you to restore dignity to these brave men and women. They all served us with no questions asked.

I present to you coffee mugs from the Maple Grove Memorial Club and a letter by Melissa DeVille, who is a grade eight student, fourteen years of age. She has written a letter to each of you on behalf of veterans, including the unofficial Persian Gulf veterans.

Committee members, I thank you for your time. You are our last hope of any honour, dignity, and justice.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

We have some questions. Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you, Susan, for your presentation.

I have spoken with several spouses of military, and they've spoken about the issue of medical care. There is a sense from many people that we are looking at a different level of medical service altogether. We are almost looking at company doctors whose main goal is to get people back on the ships, as opposed to really dealing with the illness of the men. We're talking very specifically about the Gulf War syndrome here, which is something I completely I believe in. I have no doubt whatsoever that it exists and that it is not an imaginary illness.

I would like you to talk to me about the actual quality of care that you think is being dispensed to people in the military.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: There is no quality.

My husband was diagnosed in March 1991, a few days after he returned from the gulf. He answered the Gulf War questionnaire, and that's what the military calls it, a medical. He was diagnosed with major depression in 1991. He continued to seek treatment. In 1993, at another base, he was diagnosed with chronic fatigue and major depression. We were never informed. That all came from the Privacy Act. We just received that before Christmas.

He was misdiagnosed with epilepsy from the Gulf War clinic where we went. We were thrilled. I had to fight with the base surgeon. I'm a civilian; I can go outside the chain of command. That's the only reason my husband was seen at the Gulf War clinic.

Included in your package is a SISIP application signed by Dr. Wood, directed by Ken Scott, stating that my husband has epilepsy and will not return to the workforce for three years.

[Technical difficulty—Editor]

• 1815

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Lill. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think Mr. Hanger has some questions.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, I have some questions.

Ms. Riordon, I appreciate your outline here that you presented to us. A couple of things have been revealed to me, just in what you presented. First, I didn't know that MRI scans can actually detect the syndrome. Can they?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: No. Welcome to the Gulf War clinic in Ottawa.

Mr. Art Hanger: Right. They show a lot of detail. I know MRI scans show a great deal of detail. That is pretty convincing evidence, in itself.

The other thing.... I'm referring now to your comments on page 4. Dr. Scott is not communicating with American doctors over this issue?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: As of the date that report was given to Allan Rock, no, he was not. He's not communicating with his associate in the Pentagon looking at Gulf War illness. He's not communicating with anyone doing medical research.

In papers I have to present, there are studies being done in Nebraska, Huntington Beach, California, and there are studies being done that suggest there is a possibility that Gulf War illness or Gulf War syndrome is transmittable to family members.

Mr. Art Hanger: Transmittable?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Yes. We were told three years ago to have protected sex, to use condoms. But as you see, my husband has a diagnosis of burning semen, so sex is not an issue in our marriage. Intimacy is not an issue. We sleep in separate rooms. I've lost my husband.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: I've lost my husband. The last day I saw him was December 26, 1990. The worst part is that he's lost himself. Three weeks ago he came very close to taking his own life.

Mr. Art Hanger: You're living here in Halifax?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: I live in Yarmouth, Nova Scotia.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yarmouth. And he retired as of July 31. Was that a forced retirement?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: He retired the end of July, 1995, because he felt he was ill. He was not informed he was ill.

My husband's first dedication was country first, marriage second. I knew that. I didn't always appreciate it, but I did know that.

He put in for the FRP package, knowing he was ill, not knowing why. Because he could not serve his country to the best of his standard, he felt it was better to leave.

Mr. Art Hanger: If this committee were to determine information on the American side, would it be your suggestion that we talk to this Dr. Stephen Joseph in the Pentagon?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: He would probably have more information than Ken Scott.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

This isn't the first time I've been approached, not in the committee but individually, regarding Gulf War syndrome. There are others who are complaining of this syndrome too.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: About 20% who served are the figures that I have. Out of the 20%—we sent over 4,000 people—half are out of the military and I think there are only about five of us still married. It destroys lives.

Mr. Art Hanger: Five still married out of the 20%?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Approximately, yes. It destroys lives.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, Susan.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you for your presentation.

It's interesting that you've said that DVA misplaced the files. I can't you tell you how many files I've heard of that DVA has misplaced. They definitely have to get somebody to help them with their filing system. It's clearly being used as a way to avoid responsibility.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: They misplace files and they're very, very selective. I'm speaking tonight and Terry is under a complete and total pension review. I expect more misplaced files for speaking publicly. That's a risk I assumed in applying to appear in front of this committee.

• 1820

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you say Gulf War syndrome is recognized as a disease in the United States?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Yes, it is.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How have the people who have been diagnosed with that in the United States been treated by their military, to your knowledge? Do you have any knowledge of that?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Their military has put a lot of emphasis.... The University of Nebraska and Dr. Garth Nicholson in Huntington Beach are researching micro-plasma, which he believes is communicable between husband and wife and family members. But they've taken it out of military hands. The military has handed money over and said “Do your report in two to five, or three years.”

We have entered one study in the University of Cincinnati on burning semen. Our participation is very limited. They want body fluids. From Yarmouth to Cincinnati, it's just financially impossible, but we are involved in their paper study.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Has the American military recognized this as a legitimate disease and have they compensated their people who have been diagnosed with this?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: To the best of my knowledge, yes. Their country also recognizes it as the Gulf War, whereas our country does not.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, that's another point.

We have to find out more about this. I know it's been talked about a lot, and it still seems to me there's very little known about it.

Are you saying that in April 1997, Dr. Ken Scott, in answer to the question “Have you ordered any MRIs for any of the Gulf War veterans?”, responded “No. Why should we?” That was his actual response?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: That was his actual response: “Why should we? Gulf War illness is an imaginary disease.” This man heads the Gulf War Clinic. Take a look at the numbers of those who served in the Gulf who will go to his clinic. The numbers are low.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And this information you got through the Access to Information Act, or from personal...?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: No, the researcher sent me the documentation himself. There are copies here, and I have forwarded a copy in advance. It was presented to the Honourable Allan Rock in November, and Ken Scott—I'm sorry, I can't call him doctor—Ken Scott was aware when he was interviewed that it was for a minister of our country. The diagnosis in front of you of Gulf War syndrome.... Out of five diagnoses for my husband, he signed three. How can you clinically diagnose and then turn around and state for public record and our country's Minister of Health, “It's imaginary”? Which one is it?

Mr. Leon Benoit: I certainly have to look into this in more depth, and I'd appreciate it if I could get your phone number after so I can get in touch with you. It has to be looked into.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: I appreciate that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Price.

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

Thank you very much for the presentation. A lot of my questions have been answered, but one that bothers me a little bit is this. The diagnosis Dr. Scott made on the others, was that done after he had, let's say, not diagnosed your husband?

Mrs. Susan Riordon:

[Inaudible—Editor].

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Price: You could put it that way.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Sorry; I'm not being diplomatic at all.

Mr. David Price: That's okay.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: He's made multiple diagnoses.

Mr. David Price: Some before, some after?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Some before, some after. When my husband went to the Gulf War clinic, when we found out it existed and I insisted he go, we honestly believed, “Hey, we're going to have our life back. My husband will come back.” He walked in and was told at the admitting desk, “If you have more than seven things wrong with you at one time, you're a hypochondriac.” That's how it started, and it's gone downhill.

• 1825

Mr. David Price: Do you have any idea how he could have diagnosed the others, the ones he did diagnose with Gulf War syndrome, when he says there's no such thing? How could he? Something doesn't fit at all, at all.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Ken Scott doesn't fit at all, sir. I'm sorry; that's the only way to answer that. And he is head of our military Gulf War clinic. Apparently he's a very good military officer.

Mr. David Price: Okay, thank you very much.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger, you had one short other question?

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes.

First, somebody diagnosed him with this syndrome?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: There are five clinical diagnoses of Gulf War syndrome, three signed by Ken Scott.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay, and that's in reference to your husband?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: All right. Who turned around and said otherwise, that it was epilepsy or that it was...?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Ken Scott.

Mr. Art Hanger: Scott did himself?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Yes, he did.

Mr. Art Hanger: Did he examine your husband?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: In a manner of speaking, yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: What do you mean, “in a manner of speaking”?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: He had other doctors involved, and he selected which reports he wanted to use.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are you aware of anyone else who is suffering from this disease and is having the same kind of problem?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: I think everyone with Gulf War illness or Gulf War syndrome—whichever you want to call it—anyone who comes forward will tell you the same thing.

Mr. Art Hanger: They're getting the same runaround?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: They're getting the same runaround, and some simply refuse to go to the Gulf War Clinic. And I don't encourage anyone to go. It cost us more hardship and financial loss than anything else.

Mr. Art Hanger: Financial loss meaning...?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: We based our life on a misdiagnosis of epilepsy and on Ken Scott's statement that in three years my husband would be able to return to work. So we changed our whole life plan and bought a home that is medically unsuitable now, but if you have epilepsy, it's fine. We find out later that we're in a boat and we have no paddle.

Mr. Art Hanger: And no extra compensation?

Mrs. Susan Riordon: No.

Mr. Art Hanger: All right. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Susan Riordon: Thank you.

The Chairman: I now call Rudi Saueracker.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the standing committee. My name is Rudolph H. Saueracker, SSM, and I'm a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces.

The Chairman: Would you like a chair to sit down?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: No, it's fine; I'd rather stand. But I do appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Bertrand.

I am a retired member of the Canadian Armed Forces, specifically a communications research operator 291 within the Canadian Forces communications and command supplementary radio system. I am also a terminal HIV hepatitis B patient, and I suffer from extensive anxiety and depression disorders as well as knee and gastrointestinal problems.

I consume on average per day anywhere from 35 to 40 pills of different medications, from anti-retrovirals to anti-inflammatories, gastro medications, and Ty 3 for my persistent headaches. When I am suffering from HIV HPB-related symptoms and opportunistic infections such as a simple cold, these amounts will increase significantly. The drugs help to keep me alive and reasonably mobile.

I appear here today out of a sense of urgent and dire need, even though this appearance will probably have very serious health repercussions for me, not to mention the delays that will now probably occur in my pension application process. Appearing before this committee may be my last affordable avenue in the prosecution of my own case.

• 1830

I also wish to state at this point that if it had not been for a friend who informed me of these hearings, I would not be appearing before you today. Neither Veterans Affairs nor National Defence thought it wise to send out to their pensioners any information at all regarding the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

Both of these entities are very aware of me, my family, and our concerns, yet the only way to have access to these proceedings is via the back door. I ask you, why? Do these departments feel they must stack the deck so they do not look bad or, heaven help us, have to answer to someone on some very difficult questions?

We pensioners should be notified well in advance of these hearings considering they deal with us. You've already heard—you'll probably hear this again—that we're not the only ones who have been ignored and potentially kept out of these proceedings.

I feel the best way to address the quality of life in the Canadian Armed Forces and within Veterans Affairs is to give you personal perspective, seeing as I've been exposed to both. The bulk of my perspective is enclosed in the accompanying written brief and the addendum.

I have tried desperately within the brief to keep emotion out of it and I will also try to keep emotion out of my oral presentation. I hope I will succeed. However, I do know that emotions play a great role in the quality life and also in this debate. Therefore if I appear emotional, I apologize for my inability to refrain. Also, I'm not used to writing speeches, so if there is some similarity to the written brief, it is probably by intention. It's a heck of a lot easier than trying to rewrite the same thought two or three different ways.

I also wish at this time to apologize to the committee for not having a complete translation into French for this evening. There's some very technical and important terminology as well as complex thoughts and feelings in the brief. My wife Emilie and I felt it best if we do the translation ourselves so that the meaning of my statements will not be misconstrued. A full translation will be ready and submitted shortly. We brought copies of completed sections with us, which have been submitted.

We have only had approximately three weeks to prepare this brief, and time has been very short. What I normally could have written in eight to ten hours has taken the better part of three weeks with revisions. Without the assistance of my wife, who has watched over me, cared for me, prodded and scolded me, and literally waited on me hand and foot when I was sick, I could not have even attempted to write the brief, let alone appear here in front of you.

I must also admit to having some trepidation in standing here in front of you, but here I am, just a retired serviceman, a lowly taxpayer, with no ready-made soap box to stand upon, unlike many of the persons you have already met.

You've heard from the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Baril, and you've heard from many senior officers currently within the forces and many who have retired. You've heard from so-called movers and shakers within National Defence and Veterans Affairs as well. These are all people who have immense powers of decision, career progression or non-progression, as well as reprimand over members of the armed forces.

Those of us pensioners who receive pensions either from National Defence or Veterans Affairs also must be very wary in what we say, as there is always a payback from these forces of power. These are all people who have reputations and positions to protect, as well as their own turf to protect in what seem to be private fiefdoms. And protect them they do. Experience with these departments and the effects on my pension applications gives me the confidence to state this opinion.

From what I've read in many of the testimonies from employees within National Defence, general staff and their supporting staff officers, they seem to believe that they are doing an absolutely wonderful job and they should be patted on the back for a job well done. If there are any failures, well, it must be their subordinate's fault for those failures, to paraphrase our former CDS, General Boyle. As usual, they are living in their own little dream world in which their reality is not the reality of the common soldier nor that of the families.

In my experience, there is normally no forum for the rank and file, let alone their families, or heaven forbid, a veteran, to express their concern regarding issues within the Canadian Forces and Veterans Affairs.

I'll give kudos to the current CDS in one respect. When the office of the JAG interfered after one presentation, the CDS stated publicly and in memo format that all service persons have a right to speak to this committee. This is truly a first, and I hope it's not the last. We do have rights, and it's about time that NDHQ realized this fact. I also wish to thank the CDS for this kind gesture. Bravo zulu, sir.

I'm heartened to see that many other ranks and their families have appeared in front of me discussing everything from lousy water supplies on base to inhabitable PMQs, inadequate pay, long hours, overtasking, and a lack of respect. And as you heard in Gagetown, there's bat doo-doo in the basement.

I also see finally the freedom to speak on the sorry state of leadership within the Canadian Forces. However, as interesting as these topics are and the level of my feelings for them, the issues I bring forward to you today are much more serious, deadly serious.

No Canadian in the past 25 years or so has received a death sentence from Canada's judicial system for crimes they have committed and for which they have been found guilty. Murderers and cop killers do not get the death sentence, they get life in a comfortable prison, if they are unlucky.

• 1835

Unfortunately, I am not so lucky. I, who have committed no crime, disrespect, or treasonous or seditious injury to this country, have been given the ultimate penalty. I have not been given the right to appear in front of a jury of my peers to judge my actions or have a say in my fate. The crime I committed was to place my career, health, and life in the supposedly capable and just hands of the Department of National Defence and to have served my country.

For my devotion and service to my country, I've been summarily sentenced to death by the Canadian Armed Forces and the National Defence Medical Centre. As you're aware from the contents of my submitted brief, I have described the course of events leading up to my sentence of death. I have outlined my career in the Canadian Forces, the military occupational code that I was assigned, and requirements of that trade. I have given you a description of the security clearance I held while I was in the CF, and I have tried to describe the multitude of security checks that I was forced to undergo that were primarily instigated by the medical branch of the Canadian Forces.

Contained within the addendum, which I have just submitted, is a body of proof supporting my position, and hopefully I have not forgotten anything. Additional documentation is available should you desire it.

I have also detailed the infection routes for these diseases. I have detailed those routes that have been categorically deemed by the armed forces and the security forces of this country and her allies to be an impossibility. The only avenue left is via a blood transfusion, which was witnessed by my wife, and which is the sole responsibility of the medical branch of the Canadian Forces. I have also indicated to you the opinion of legal counsel.

By virtue of the granting of the continued holding of one of our country's highest security clearances, I cannot be an IV drug user, a homosexual, or a promiscuous man. By virtue of that fact, it is not incumbent upon me to prove that I am none of the above, but it is incumbent upon the armed forces and the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am. However, that's the current situation I find myself in: having to prove that I am a trustworthy, honourable, and decent tax-paying citizen. Therefore, I ask you: what crime have I committed to deserve a death sentence?

I have a wife and five children, three of whom were conceived after my date of infection. Of even more concern is what crime has my wife and three youngest daughters committed, aside from being my dependants, that deserves the callous disrespect and the unmitigated gall the armed forces has shown while exposing these innocents to such deadly diseases as HIV and hepatitis B? Who gave NDHQ or anyone in the armed forces that kind of power—the right to decide who lives, who dies, and who's put at risk? They are much more than furniture and effects, even though NDHQ does not want to accept that reality.

You've probably heard this many times, but I must repeat it again. It is commonly familiar to most if not all in the military who have dependants that if NDHQ would have wished us to have spouses and children, they would have bloody well issued them to us. Yeah, right, they can't even ensure that our combat arms troops have boots.

I've also described in this brief the conditions under which we lived while in the forces. I have tried to impart to you the conditions under which we now live. They are almost unbearable. I know, as I live it every day. My wife and five children live it every day through no fault of mine or of my family.

Mr. Chairman, I know I'm under a time limit here, but you must understand that I am under another time limit. When I was diagnosed in 1992, they gave me until Christmas 1992 to live. Or if I was really lucky, I would have two years.

Every minute that I now breathe is a gift from God and no other. It's one that by all rights I should not have. I'm in a battle for my life. And to make matters even worse, I must now fight a major bureaucratic battle with National Defence and Veterans Affairs to ensure that when I no longer breathe, my wife and children will not starve, lose the family home, lose their right to an education, or be forced to live on the street.

This is quality of life? By whose definition? This is not a life. I'm a corpse waiting for a box. As sure as you see me standing here, you can be assured that I will not in all likelihood reach my fiftieth birthday. I should not have reached my fortieth. There'll be no retirement for me, no golden pension, no rocking chairs on the porch with the one person I love more than anything else in this life. It's all gone.

• 1840

Not only that, but answer me this: what kind of life is it for my children, who wake up in the morning not knowing if their father will get really sick and die? How do you explain to your children that because daddy was in the military he will not grow old with mommy? This is “quality of life” for me and my family.

How many of you can go home to your spouse and continue a normal marital relationship? My wife and I have been denied that part of our marriage for over six years now. I live with the constant fear of killing my wife simply by loving her. I have next to no benefits. I have no insurance, as I'm uninsurable. I have no RRSPs and no other pension vehicles to provide for my family, nor do I have the resources to purchase those vehicles. This is all gone as well. They have taken away my GSMIP, my right to SISIP, and a proper medical release item for pension purposes. They even took away my right to be notified of my illness and to advise my wife of my illness to ensure she would not be put at risk.

Financially, we would starve if it were not for CPP, as there would be no way I could survive on the approximately $ 250 a month I'd get from Veterans Affairs. Then, to add insult to injury, when I am finally awarded the special service medal with two bars—two bars!—for service to my country, it is mailed to me in a brown paper bag. “Here you go, now get out of my face”...that's exactly how I felt. And they call this respecting our service personnel? I don't even have the clasps yet.

Again, I would like to quote remarks made by a member of this committee on Tuesday, March 10, 1998, in Ottawa, Ontario, while Lieutenant-General Kinsman was presenting his brief:

I guess I'm a little bit uncomfortable trying to define the responsibilities of the government to the military, because we'd be telling them what we think our obligation is to them. We already define what their obligation is to us, and that's to act as defenders of our country at the risk of the loss of their life. Now we are to define what we owe them in return for that potential sacrifice.

Those were the words of Mr. Bob Wood.

I ask you now to look myself and my wife in the eye and tell us what this country's obligation is to us. Can you?

It's all very well and good to keep sending our sons and daughters off to defend Canada and our way of life, but damn it, you'd better soon figure out what you owe them, and you'd better soon get that obligation enshrined in law. Put it into practice and start helping those who've given their all for their country. We should not be treated like fourth- or fifth-class citizens.

Before I close my oral presentation, I'd like to give you a definition. It is my definition. What is a veteran? A veteran is any man or woman who has worn the uniform of this country's armed services or the merchant marine in times of war, peace or regional conflict, or is, in the role of today's service persons, in the field of peacekeeping around the globe. These people have made the conscious decision to put their lives on the line to guarantee our rights to freedom, which we seem to take collectively ever so lightly.

Please reflect upon this decision, which I humbly put forward to you. Before you file this particular study on some shelf in the archives, please consider the men and women in uniform and the wives, the husbands and the children of all these wonderful people who only want to serve their country. Consider these families who are all too often the ones left picking up the pieces. It's certainly not the armed forces. Nor is it Veterans Affairs or the government. Consider long and hard what obligation Canada has to these people.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your time and your indulgence. If you have any questions, I'll be pleased to answer them.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. This is quite a brief you've submitted.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I tried, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, I can see that you did. And it's obviously been a very long battle.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Almost six years, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: I want you to explain something about exactly what happened some years ago. You received a transfusion?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: As far as I know, sir. I was on an operating table under general anaesthesia. I haven't got a clue as to what the hell they did. My wife saw the transfusion.

Mr. Art Hanger: What year was that?

• 1845

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: April 17, 1985.

Mr. Art Hanger: And it was infected blood?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: As far as we can surmise, sir, it had to be. It's the only viable route there is left. There are only four routes for HIV hepatitis B infection.

Mr. Art Hanger: Right, exactly.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: There are four. You're either an IV drug user, or promiscuous, or you're gay, or you got it through this country's blood system.

The military gave me a top secret, special access, category 3 code word clearance. I could not talk to my wife about what I did at work. I couldn't even talk to my fellow employees, my fellow servicemen who worked in the same room as I did, about what I was doing on my bay. If I was to get that type of clearance from the government of this country, that means that I am definitely, incontrovertibly, absolutely not a homosexual, an IV drug user, or promiscuous. I'm also married to an Acadian. If I were promiscuous I would be dead. I wouldn't be here before you.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: That's how I feel, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: You obviously have a very good relationship with your wife.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I love her dearly, sir. If it were not for my wife I would be dead now.

Mr. Art Hanger: The blood supply at that time was in fact tainted, was it not?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: To the best of my knowledge, yes. If you read any of the books...if you read the book by André Picard, it details quite clearly, and the Krever commission details quite clearly, the incompetence, the negligence of the government of this country.

Mr. Art Hanger: Has there been any record—and I've noticed you've got copies of a lot of things in here—to show that there was in fact blood that was supplied to the military?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: No, there is not.

Mr. Art Hanger: No record?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: There is no record at all of any blood bag. There is no record of the second IV site, yet I have the scars in both my feet. But the military say I must be stupid, because it was only one IV. So why do I have two holes? Are you that incompetent in putting in an IV that you need to take two stabs at it, one in each foot?

I have no problem believing my wife, none whatsoever. Why would I have a problem? Why should I doubt her? I already know there is no other choice, there is no other viable avenue. Those three the military has already stated are categorical impossibilities. Therefore, the only one that's left must be the only viable way the infection came into my body. It's not just that, but purusing these documents about 2 a.m. four or five days ago, I came across a doctor's report where they noticed, in 1986, that my liver was inflamed. They suspected hepatitis B and refused to do the examination. When I was released they didn't do the complete blood screening, they did a CBC. Big deal.

Mr. Art Hanger: In 1986.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: And I was released in 1987. And by mid-April 1987 I was in the City of Moncton Hospital almost dead from a terminal case of hepatitis B and jaundice so severe that most people would not have been able to make it to the hospital, never mind stand.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are your wife and children infected?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: God, no. And I thank God for that, because it's only by his mercy and his intervention that they are not.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Mr. Price.

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

Thank you very much for being able to be here. I think it was really important that we hear this, and that we hear it directly from you.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Thank you, Mr. Price. I appreciate it.

Mr. David Price: I have had a chance to read your brief before; in fact, I read it several times. I just can't find the adjectives to describe it. I do hope the rest of the members will have a chance to actually read the complete brief. It's important that the whole thing be read. There are a lot of other details in there that we need to know.

I have a couple of questions that come out of it. One of them that's probably important—and it is in brief—is they gave you a general anaesthetic—

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Yes.

Mr. David Price: —and operated on both of your wrists at the same time for carpal tunnel syndrome.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Apparently so, and they only used one tourniquet. In fact I checked after with several friends of mine who have had the operation, and all they do is just freeze your arm—

Mr. David Price: Normally, yes.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: —and go ahead and do it.

My best friend in Moncton had the same surgery, and it took him 15 minutes.

• 1850

Mr. David Price: Yes, exactly. This seems absolutely incredible, both hands at the same time.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: This is so incredible it's ridiculous. It's almost laughable.

Mr. David Price: No, it's certainly not laughable.

Could you give us just what your job was, your exact job in the military?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I can do that, but before I do that, sir, I'm going to ask the chairman....

Mr. Chairman, before I answer Mr. Price's question I request a complete guarantee that I will not be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act of this country in any way, shape, or form. Do I have that guarantee, sir?

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I don't think this committee can give that guarantee.

The Chairman: I don't know, sir, if I have the power.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: If I don't answer his question?

The Chairman: I don't know, sir, if I have the power or the authority.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I am required by law to answer Mr. Price's question?

Mr. David Pratt: No, you're not, sir.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: No, I'm not?

Mr. David Pratt: You're not required to answer his question if it violates a statute of this country or violates the Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Then let me make this statement.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: When I retired on March 6, 1987, I signed a security release document that stated I will not discuss for a period of five years the conditions of my service or what I did in the military. That expired on March 6, 1992. CSE, which has contacted me twice this year by telephone, has already stated that they will hold me to the 25 years to life clause, which I did not sign. If you're willing for me to discuss it under those conditions, I will.

Mr. David Price: How about I rephrase it?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Rephrase it.

Mr. David Price: Let's assume then you had an extremely high clearance.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Yes, I did.

Mr. David Price: In fact, about as far as you can go.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Higher than prime ministers.

Mr. David Price: So why would you need that much clearance?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Because I was an illicit intercept operator.

Mr. David Price: Okay. To get to that level of clearance I imagine you would have to go through an awful lot of training, a lot of....

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Yes. I spent 11 months at E Squadron, the Canadian Forces school of communications and electronic engineering in CFB Kingston, where I learned all kinds of neat and wonderful things. I learned how to count in several languages and read neat words. I learned the craft of a 291er, which means copying Morse, at which I excelled, when I was in Alert in 1992. I was clocked by a SigDev means. It's very accurate, copying 100% accuracy at 60 words per minute, what were Russian air defence grid tracking reports.

Mr. David Price: Therefore, I imagine an awful lot of use, therefore the carpal tunnel syndrome.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Most definitely.

Mr. David Price: Do you know when you were infected?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Yes. Even my doctors have said they will say it only once or twice and they'll never write it down. But if you look in my application for the extraordinary assistance benefits under the appeal sponsored by the federal government or under the auspices of Health Canada, you'll find that their own physicians stated that my cell counts upon diagnosis in 1992 were consistent with infection between January and June 1985.

Mr. David Price: And, again, the date that you had your operation.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: April 1985.

Mr. David Price: I won't dig any deeper. We wouldn't want to get you into any trouble at all. You've got enough trouble.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I don't want to spend the rest of my life in jail.

Mr. David Price: Anyway, again, thank you very much for coming and presenting.

The Chairman: Before I go to Ms. Lill I just wanted to tell you that I will find out about the legal aspect of this and we will have you back.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Very good, sir. You call me and I will come.

The Chairman: Okay.

Could you tell me what brought you into the hospital? I may have misunderstood.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Carpal tunnel syndrome.

The Chairman: In both hands?

• 1855

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Yes.

Also, one other thing I'd like to clarify with Mr. Hanger as well, normally when they do a carpal tunnel surgery, it's an inch to two bilaterally across your wrist. My scars go from here to here, both hands. Explain that one to me. I'm not a medical professional, but that's not bilateral to me; that's longitudinal.

The Chairman: Yes, and did you do strenuous work?

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: No. I was a communications intercept operator. I typed for a living. I copied Morse code. I punched out traffic analysis reports. I sent documentation via teletype to CSE, a sedentary position.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I want to apologize for not having read your documentation. I'm going to be receiving it, and I'll have a look at it tomorrow.

I'm very interested in the whole issue of the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C within the military. It's something that somehow has mysteriously not been addressed, and—

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Could I give you a reason why it has not been addressed?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'd be very interested. I was actually going to ask you what your experience is with that, and what—

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: In the armed forces, HIV and hepatitis C are self-inflicted injuries.

My question is, while I was under general anaesthetic, while I was under restraint, while I had IVs in both my feet, did I suddenly miraculously jump off that gurney and go over and grab some needle or whatever and jab myself with this stuff? I think not. But according to the military, it is a self-inflicted injury. That is their attitude, and they do not have to even entertain any pension applications on a self-inflicted injury.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess that's a very important issue that this committee has to address.

One of the things that keeps coming back when listening to you is this idea that if HQ had wanted us to have a wife and children they would have issued them to us, and statements such as “there's always a payback from people with power”. These are statements that have an amazing sort of oppressive quality about them, and they seem to be indicating—I hate to say it—a pretty bad attitude about your boss.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Would you like to hear something really sweet?

Ms. Wendy Lill: Well, I would. This is the forum for this, and I really do want to hear about that.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: About 36 months ago I was extremely sick. I could not get up off the couch. I spent 17 to 20 hours a day on my back. My wife and my kids were taking care of me. There's a process under Veterans Affairs that you can apply for a thing called an attendant allowance, which is to provide extra funds to account for the extra effort or sometimes great expense that is incurred taking care of very ill veterans. We applied for that. We were categorically refused.

Then a very nice lady who I met at the New Brunswick tattoo back last October decided she was going to help. One of her staffers in her local office called Veterans Affairs. This was on a Friday morning at about 10 o'clock. At 10.20 I got a phone call asking me if I was all right, or if things had changed. At 11.20 I got another phone call saying, oops, we blew it; we owe you 30 months' back pay. And guess what? It's level 2, $ 1,000 a month that I could have used 30 months previously. Not only that, it takes anywhere from eight to sixteen weeks to get a back-pay cheque from Veterans Affairs. Do you know how long it took to get that into my bank account? Eight days. That's one MP.

Do you understand how much power you have? You can fix the wrongs if you so desire, but you have to desire it. You have to turn around and say to yourself that you have to be prepared to back up these people we send to all corners of the globe or to someplace like Alert. Have you ever been to Alert? You don't want to go; it's not great. You have to take care of them, respect them, and honour them, because they're doing your dirty work. They're doing the work that most politicians and bureaucrats and most people in this country will not dirty their hands doing; they leave it to the military. You have to respect them for that, and you have to provide for them. That's something this country does not do.

• 1900

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Lebel.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I have a few questions to ask the gentleman. I would like him to use the headphones, because I would prefer asking my questions in French. There is an interpreter.

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I'll ask my wife to translate.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Very well. Madam speaks French.

First, do you have a rank? Were you in the Army? My understanding is that you were a Lieutenant-Colonel. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I was a corporal.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Corporal. I am new to this Committee, and there is one thing I find strange. In the federal civil service, when an employee becomes unable to work for medical reasons after a certain number of years, he is entitled to a pension. He is entitled to some compensation, and in the longer term, to a disability pension. Is this also the case in the Army?

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: First, we don't have access to the documents to apply for the pension. We don't have access to the documents that describe these pensions. We don't have access to any information. It has taken me five years of screaming, yelling, jumping up and down and banging on tables to try to get application forms and my documents. I still don't have my security documents. I still don't have all my pensions. I don't even have the applications for them.

I applied almost six or seven months ago to Mr. Terry Tobin, who is the Atlantic assistant to Admiral Mifflin, for the medical ratings guide. A very lovely little lady gave them to me tonight, which is something this person, who gets paid $ 60,000 a year or thereabouts for a civil servant of his level, could not comply with. I've asked for five years for a blank, never mind completed, copy of my documents, for a DND-250 personal history form. I can't get that either.

This is the cute little form I got this week after Mr. Hills was pestered by both me and my MP. Mr. Hills, who is the Atlantic assistant for the Honourable Art Eggleton, Minister of National Defence, said to me:

Thank you for your letter of March 17, 1998, requesting a blank Personal History Form. I have been informed by Department of National Defence authorities that the DND-250A form has not existed since 1986. I regret to inform you that no unused copies of this form exist. However, it has been replaced by the enclosed questionnaire. I have provided a guide to assist you in completing the personnel security clearance questionnaire.

I don't want to complete it. I already have one. There must be a dozen copies in my personal files that I cannot get. Those are my documents. I should have a right to them. Under the Access to Information Act of this country I have that right, but I can't get them because they pertain to security matters.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Are you telling me that, to have access to your own record, you must resort to the Access to Information Act?

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Repeatedly.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Are you telling us that, to have access to your own record, you must resort to the Access to Information Act?

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: I have to use the Access to Information Act. I also have to beg MPs or other federal civil servants to get access to them. I didn't even have the resource codes to ask for these documents. You'll see in my brief that I've requested almost every document, and it's under the section marked “Access to Information”.

• 1905

I've requested them from Veterans Affairs and DND. I've requested all my documents from CSE, and I have yet to receive them. This is my information. The government doesn't own it, I do. But I can't get it, no matter what I do.

My MP, Mrs. Claudette Bradshaw, is a very capable member of Parliament and a very wonderful lady. Her staff is excellent. She has tried for months, since July of last year after being sworn in as a member of Parliament, to work on my case and try to help me get some satisfaction to these problems, and she is running up against a stone wall. She's getting cute little PFO notes. She's being stonewalled by the government constantly.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Listen, I will insist a little more, because what I am asking you is very serious. I want to make sure we understand each other well. To obtain information on yourself that is in your record, you must go through the Access to Information Commission.

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Yes, that's exactly the route we have to use.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: I bring this important fact to Committee's attention. It is his record. It is his disease. It is his own business, and it is hidden from him. He has to twist the arms of people from other departments to have access to his record. This is disgusting, Mr. Chairman! Disgusting! I, too, Sir, would like to have your credentials and the document you wrote, which you refer to, because I, myself, did not get it. I came into this after the others. I find this absurd, absolutely absurd.

[English]

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Okay, I will try to get copies of this brief prepared for you by the beginning of the week.

The Chairman: Mr. Saueracker, I want to thank you very much for your presentation. As I said before, you will be hearing from me.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your time and indulgence.

The Chairman: I wish you all the best.

Mr. Rudi Saueracker: Thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Master Seaman Dean Mackinnon, you have about five minutes for your presentation.

Master Seaman Dean Mackinnon (Individual Presentation): I'll try to keep it brief.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dean MacKinnon. I'm a master seaman in the naval reserve and presently employed on HMCS Kingston, one of the 12 maritime coastal defence vessels primarily manned by naval reservists. I've been on long-term contract with the naval reserve for approximately nine years. I'm married, have two children, and live in the PMQs in Dartmouth.

I'm here tonight representing the naval reserve community, who have been served very poorly by the present pay system. I want to make it clear I'm not here to rediscuss issues concerning remuneration. Instead, I'm here to outline the ongoing pay issues that affect the majority of naval reservists.

I believe steps are being taken to improve this situation, but they won't likely take effect for three to six months from now. We need solutions now, and even with these planned changes there are no guarantees the problem will be rectified.

First of all, let me outline the five areas I wish to comment on, which include not being paid, being paid late, not receiving T-4 slips, no pay statements, and finally accountability.

I'd like to commence with the issue of not being paid. Many members who are employed on short-term contracts, which are 90 days and less, occasionally must wait up to six weeks to get paid. The normal delay is 15 days. For a person employed for a short period of time this can greatly limit their ability to financially support themselves and their families away from home. Often these members are junior, not familiar with the pay system, and unclear how to rectify the situation. They feel it's not their place to question the information they are given.

The issue of not getting paid on short-term contracts leads directly to those of us on long-term contracts who are not getting paid on appointed days, which causes undue family strain and financial difficulties. This is particularly difficult when the ship is deployed, your wife goes to the bank to get money to buy food for your children, the bank account is empty and you're 500 miles off the coast on Canada's missions. It tends to leave them feeling quite neglected and alone.

• 1910

Late payments cause a snowball effect on prearranged payments such as mortgages, loans, rent, and insurance, leaving members responsible for alleviating the problem and to explain what happened. A member ends up paying service charges and can never be sure payments will be on time. It got so bad on Kingston at one point that we had to use our INMARSAT phone system so the crew members could confirm that they actually got paid and could deal with the resultant pay problems.

My ship has even appointed a pay officer to assist with pay problems, and there's not yet been a period where there has not been at least a half a dozen pay problems.

The ship has kept a file comprised of every two weeks between pay systems. They've had to phone a pay officer 41 times since April 15.

Another area where we do not really see our money is with the environment allowance, which in our case is sea pay. Sea pay is paid to the people who actually go to sea. It's to be received by the middle of the month. Many members of the Kingston ship's company have not received their sea duty allowance since February, and some even since September. This is money that many people depend on and budget with. We should be able to depend on receiving it every month instead of looking at it as a novelty when we actually receive it. Once again, this month, the sea duty allowance is not here. It won't be issued.

Notwithstanding the recent increase in the reserve pay, many of us rely heavily on the sea pay for important expenses. It is ours. We have definitely earned it. So why can't we get it?

These difficulties in the system also affect the preparation of our income taxes. The income tax deadline in Canada is well-known. In our situation, as employees of a federal department, we do not receive T-4 slips on time and correctly. Some have not received T-4 slips for three to five years. As a band-aid solution, DND forwards statements using T-4 information, which likely has been largely accepted by Revenue Canada. It would appear that the system, in hopes of receiving T-4s, waits until the last minute and then issues these letters. This causes problems with RRSP planning and income tax filing. I know members who have never received a T-4 slip. Every other Canadian seems to get one, so why not us?

I've recently been told that we'll be receiving pay statements, but to date we've not seen any. Rarely can a member expect to be paid for the same amount for the same days he has worked.

If you want to see what I'm being paid, I have to go to a local pay office, ask for a pay guide—and then it's all Greek to me. I must submit a memo to have clarification from the pay office and have somebody explain it to me.

I don't know of any employer in the country that doesn't provide a pay statement. I believe it is law.

When someone is promoted, it can take up to six months to receive payment at the new rank. In my particular case, when I was promoted from leading seaman to master seaman, it took four months to get paid as a master and to get all of the payment that was owed to me.

At this time the reserves are being paid well below their regular force counterparts, and promotion money increases made the difference as far deep in the pocket as grocery money.

Kingston's pay officer has been waiting over a year to receive his pay adjustments on his own file. It took our executive officer three and a half months to get his. Presently, we have two members who are not being paid at their new rank, and they were promoted in January of this year.

Again, Kingston is used as an example that is accurately representative of the community as a whole. Members work hard to be promoted in a highly competitive workforce, and not being rewarded for their efforts can be discouraging and demoralizing, especially when they are serving our country in a very hazardous environment, separated from their families, in many cases more than their regular force counterparts, and seem to suffer a double standard pay system.

The issues I've outlined today have been an ongoing problem for me personally. I've faced rent, grocery, and back-payment problems due to this, and so have many other reservists. I do not believe that being paid for work completed is a privilege. I believe it's law. Millions of Canadians get paid on time with the correct amount. Why can't we?

I'm of the belief that approximately $ 85 million has been spent on a personal management system that is now being used as our pay system, without perceivable benefits and with perhaps a worsening of the situation from the former method of payment.

Just as an aside, a well-known Atlantic Canada corporation, Sobey's, pays 19,000 employees correctly and on time with just three people.

I do not feel that an immediate solution is in sight, and many I speak with, frankly, have lost hope and faith. The pay is still late and incorrect. A significant number of reservists still do not get pay statements or T-4 slips. Every other Canadian employer is required to provide these to their employees.

We are briefed that contingency plans are in place should we not get paid, but these usually kick in a day after we are due our money. There is no advance warning.

In conclusion, looking after people should be a primary concern of any organization, especially one where the people are serving their country, risking their lives at bargain rates.

• 1915

Most junior members within this organization are left to feel, with evidence, that our leaders are struggling to affect change and would appear to be powerless. Week after week pay problems continue to exist. I don't believe the creditors will continue to show indefinite sympathy for delayed payments, or non-payments.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your time. I hope this presentation has provided you with some insight into major morale and quality of life concerns.

[Translation]

Thank you very much.

[English]

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Master Seaman Mackinnon, how many sailors on your ship?

MS Dean Mackinnon: We have 35.

The Chairman: Of those 35, how many experience problems with their pay?

MS Dean Mackinnon: Since April 15 we've had 41 phone calls consisting of different problems, some the same. I would say almost three-quarters to half of our ship's company are having problems. Totally unacceptable.

The Chairman: We had the people responsible for paying the reserves in front of our committee about two or three months ago, and we were assured—we were assured—that 80% of the problems were resolved.

Now, there are other members here who were with me. That's what we were told.

MS Dean Mackinnon: I'll give you a copy of this brief. I'll give you a copy of all our pay documents and problems.

I don't know what else to say.

The Chairman: No, I understand how you feel.

MS Dean Mackinnon: When I came up here I promised I'd be articulate and unemotional. I really told myself I would, but hearing this, that, hey, it's all taken care of....

Do you get paid?

The Chairman: Yes, we do.

MS Dean Mackinnon: I'm sure they do as well.

The Chairman: Yes.

MS Dean Mackinnon: But to expect seamen—naval seamen and even lieutenant-commanders—to go to sea, away from their families, and then....

I enlisted, but my wife and my children didn't.

The Chairman: I remember distinctly—and I'm sorry if I'm taking up some time here—because I've been on this committee since 1993, and every year the problem has surfaced. I made the recommendation that the generals should use the same pay system as the reserves.

Voices: Hear, hear.

MS Dean Mackinnon: Yes, but I doubt somebody's going to go eight days without getting paid.

The Chairman: Exactly. Maybe they'd fix the problem then.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It really is good to hear a really good idea coming from you.

The Chairman: I do have them sometimes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Of course. I'm not saying I don't hear them all the time.

I've heard from many people in the reserves about problems with pay. Many have told me that it's gotten better in the last few months, but they've also wondered why the pay system that's used for regular force members isn't used for reservists as well.

Now, I've never received an answer to that. Have you?

MS Dean Mackinnon: I've asked it. I've actually asked it a few times since I've gotten the information, but the powers that be have this new personnel management system, which they've spent approximately $ 85 million on, and feel they're going to make it work. The people who've been working on it for the last several years are going to make it work.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I think you said that you won't be paid again this month.

MS Dean Mackinnon: For sea pay. To tell you the truth, I almost fell down last week when I got paid on time. I'm serious.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How do you know you won't be receiving it this month on time?

MS Dean Mackinnon: The pay office informed my pay officer that we'd not get our sea pay because papers didn't get in on time for the pay of the fifteenth. This was on the fourth. What do you have to do, get it in on the first, by noon?

I don't know what they do at the pay office. I can't answer those questions. I only sit back and see us work ourselves to the bone and not get our pay while our children and our wives are going, “What are you doing? Come on. If you're not getting paid, get the hell out.”

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have people gotten caught owing taxes that they've had to pay back?

MS Dean Mackinnon: Yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I'm sure Revenue Canada wouldn't mind if you didn't get it in on time.

• 1920

MS Dean Mackinnon: Oh, hey, I'm sure they won't tax you or put more money on your.... It happened to me several years ago. I owed $ 1,000 because of incorrect tax forms. They came back and said “Hey, where's our money?” I didn't know.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Has anybody ever pushed the point about not receiving the T-4 slips on time, about laying charges or something? I don't know how you do that, but.... Have you ever tried to push the point in some way?

MS Dean Mackinnon: Redress of grievance is our route in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes, I know.

MS Dean Mackinnon: I haven't personally. I don't know. I can't answer that for you right now, but I'm sure we can get the information and send it to you.

Reservists who come from home units—they join and come for class B on long-term contracts—have to wait for their information to pass from place to place and it never gets there on time. It's so much like.... You can complain all you want, but it's complaining.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Along that line, are you at all concerned about making a presentation here tonight? Are you concerned that there might be repercussions?

MS Dean Mackinnon: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do you feel pretty comfortable about that?

MS Dean Mackinnon: When I first heard about it I was sort of nervous when I saw the warning on the message that nobody would be held accountable for what they would say, but I kind of looked forward to it as I started making our brief with the people on my shift. I'm not complaining or saying it's something that we don't deserve. I really believe in my heart that these people need to be paid. I can't expect these people to work and not get paid, nor can anybody else. It's unacceptable. And nobody else, high above, is going to say “I didn't get paid, so go away.”

What happens when people say “We're not getting paid, so why come to work?” And we get thrown into the boat: they're saying we are in the Canadian Armed Forces and we will attend work or we'll get charged, because we're following the Queen's Regulations and Orders—and they will.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you very much.

MS Dean Mackinnon: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Judi.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You indicated that you'd been informed by your pay officer already that you're not going to get paid in the upcoming—

MS Dean Mackinnon: Sea pay.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —sea pay. Did he explain why?

MS Dean Mackinnon: Yes. The naval reserves, for the MCDVs, which we currently manage.... We must submit a paper to the pay office stating who is to get sea pay. I'm led to believe that for anybody anywhere else, they show up at the orderly room and say they're going to a ship and they're going to get paid until they come off that ship, whereas we have to submit a paper stating we did go to sea for this time, and if it doesn't get in on time, we don't get paid.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: And when is “on time”?

MS Dean Mackinnon: I'm not even sure of the exact date.

Excuse me, I'm just going to confer.

You must have this paper in on the 26th of the month before.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Whose responsibility is it to fill that out?

MS Dean Mackinnon: The coxswain of each ship.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So if the coxswain of the ship doesn't do it, the fault is at this end, not at the other. Is that it?

MS Dean Mackinnon: It would be at our end, but the problem is that the papers are going off.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: But getting back to what we were told when they were before us at the committee, their indication was that there had been a screw-up at their end, that they had received things on time and that there were foul-ups. But they assured us that if the documentation is received by them on time there won't be a problem. I'm trying to find out for my own perspective whether the problem is at this end or the other end.

MS Dean Mackinnon: I have to be honest. I'd probably say it's a little bit of both. What happens if we don't get it in on time? I guess we have to suffer. But when these papers get there on time and we still don't get it—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay, but—

MS Dean Mackinnon: I have to tell you that there are people who haven't had sea pay since September, but our ship got the papers there on time.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. And those we'll deal with separately, but I guess I'm a little suspect about this one if they've already said “Oh, by the way, you're not going to get sea pay this time.” It leads me to believe—

MS Dean Mackinnon: That it wasn't submitted on time.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —that it wasn't submitted on time from this end.

MS Dean Mackinnon: The papers were sent on April 22, 1998, for May sea pay, so let's do the math. That's four days ahead of schedule and we're still not getting it. I don't know. I can't tell you. I'd like to have a pay officer here.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'd like to talk to a pay officer, as well, because—

MS Dean Mackinnon: Submit a memo.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —it's going to be difficult for us to get the root of this problem if we don't know which end to investigate. And this is something we'd like to investigate.

MS Dean Mackinnon: Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

MS Dean Mackinnon: I appreciate it, but, like we have to, I guess you have to submit a memo—unless you know somebody.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Maybe we know somebody.

Voices: Oh, oh.

MS Dean Mackinnon: I hope so.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

MS Dean Mackinnon: Thank you very much.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Chairman: Chief Petty Officer Fred Millar.

• 1925

Chief Petty Officer Fred Millar (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members.

My name is Chief Petty Officer Fred Millar. I'm the senior military firefighter in the Merland area and have been a firefighter for 27 years. I'd like to discuss two issues of concern to the military firefighters in the area. The first is about a proposal for the navy to spend $ 6 million over four years to get something that they're getting for free now. The second concerns annual leave and shift workers.

The CPF TRUMP establishment review examined operations and manning on Halifax and Iroquois classes of ship. They made a controversial proposal to convert two firefighter positions to hull tech positions. It's controversial because it flies in the face of sound business planning, i.e., it replaces lower-pay personnel with higher-pay personnel—and the tradesmen who are involved in it want nothing to do with it—and it does nothing to resolve the initial problem.

The key aspect reviewed by the team was preventive maintenance. Firefighters have the lowest amount of deferred maintenance on the ships and the hull technicians have some of the highest.

As for the logic that was used, it was felt that this discrepancy was caused by having too many firefighters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Firefighters are placed on ship in accordance with the shipboard helicopter operating procedure, which is a flight manual. It mandates that they have to have six firefighters on board for flying stations. It has nothing to do with workload. Hull techs are placed on a ship in accordance with personnel staffing manuals and that is based on the amount of work they have to do.

One of the assumptions made when Halifax class ships were being built and Iroquois class ships were being TRUMPed was that since the equivalent was new, maintenance would be minimal, and thus fewer maintainers would be required.

Unfortunately Murphy's Law kicked in around then, because the equipment did nothing but break down for the first three or four years. Thus, the HTs couldn't progress with their normal workload because they were too busy coping with unforeseen breakdowns. The firefighters were lucky because their equipment was relatively reliable and not subject to breakdown.

The suggestion to replace firefighters with hull techs is ludicrous when it's looked at from a business case point of view. The Canadian Forces fire marshall has done a cost analysis and concludes it will cost approximately $ 6.7 million over four years to carry out this proposal. Some of the extra costs included are $ 1.2 million for pilot training and another $ 1.2 million for carry-on courses. There are differences in pay between the technicians and the firefighters—approximately $ 200,000—and possible increases on sea duty allowance, because hull techs quite often get a higher rate of sea duty allowance than firefighters. It's $ 124,000.

Really, the maintenance issues are unresolved. The ships are more reliable now that equipment problems are sort of resolved. What's happened now is that it's starting to become a rice bowl issue and also a uniform issue. Firefighters' uniforms are light blue. I'm one of the few that's in a dark blue uniform.

There are feasible and cost-effective means available to the navy to address the issue. Suggestions were made that some of the hull techs' work could be devolved to the firefighters. We're already trained in some of the things. One of the examples was the maintenance of the firemain system. We're already trained in that and many of the ships already have firefighters doing it, even though it is a hull tech responsibility.

Initially, I think, the navy was sold a bill of goods. They were sort of told that in the old days you could have a two-day halo firefighting course, go up on the flight deck and augment the firefighters. That's not the case any more. The helicopters are old. It's very dangerous and it's very important that they have trained personnel there.

The air force, unfortunately, didn't give us a ringing endorsement. All the air force said was that as long as they get the same level of protection, they don't care who gives it. Wiser heads prevailed and a board was composed mainly of navy personnel. They felt that it required 35 training days to train a hull technician to be comparable to a firefighter on the flight deck. There go your savings.

The first pilot course was conducted at the Canadian Forces fire academy in Borden. Even though there were certain critical prerequisites that the students had to have, one that stands out especially is physical fitness. Several of the students who arrived there hadn't passed their physical fitness tests. The navy waived the requirement for physical fitness and continued to run the course. At the end of the course, despite extensive PT, some of them still failed the physical fitness portion.

• 1930

The at-sea portion of the trial was basically a joke on the east coast. There were several problems: the trial period was too short; the trial was conducted on the HMCS Montreal and the *HMCS itIroquois; and it was only for the period while they were doing work-ups, which was approximately three to four weeks. The hull tech were not even posted on the Montreal until two weeks after the trial started, and the senior firefighters involved on both coasts were not invited to briefings on how to employ the HTs. In fact, the east coast briefings were conducted almost two weeks after the trial started.

I have no doubt that the firefighting force in the trial will be successful; they were trained by the best, professional firefighters. The proposal should fail on the maintenance issue. In fact, Montreal firefighters experienced great difficulty progressing in their work, because they were short two firefighters during a short work period that is an extremely extensive work period.

In conclusion, firefighters are highly skilled and more than meet the navy's fire protection needs. Two firefighter positions converted to hull techs would cost approximately $ 7 million to the fleet budget on a four-year cycle. There would also be an increased risk during the transition, due to loss of skill and experience provided by firefighters.

Given the present financial climate, especially the purchase of new submarines, it's not cost-effective to continue this trial. The existing firefighter establishment meets the operation requirements of the navy, and without any additional cost to the navy. That's definitely a win-win situation.

The second portion I'd like to talk about is annual leave. It has to do with annual leave for...I'll call them essential service shift workers, such as firefighters.

The current annual leave policy was developed to ease extreme financial pressures accumulated leave was exerting on DND, and also to improve morale. The policy has just entered its third year, and it's obvious to me and to many of my fellow fire chiefs that the policy is unfair to firefighters, because the policy is designed for day workers.

It's not an isolated problem, and the reasons vary from unit to unit. And it's not isolated to the firefighting trade. My shift establishment is four eight-person platoons, and my minimum duty strength is six. I have to work with six people, no matter what. The extra two bodies allow for leave, courses, statutory holidays, and so on.

Postings, releases, deployments, and medical problems all subtract from an eight-person platoon. If a platoon has two people away, there's no leave, statutory holidays, and so on. At one point, I had one member in Bosnia, two in Borden, three training for Haiti, and one medically unfit. One person can go on leave out of 36 people.

The present leave policy allows firefighters, depending on their schedule, in the worst-case scenario, depending on whose side you're looking at, to take four days leave and get fourteen days off. The best case, in my case, as management, is six days leave and they get fourteen days off. Platoons have a total time off liability between 456 and 860 person-days a year. This does not include time off in lieu when they work statutory holidays or special events such as the Nova Scotia International Air Show.

The shift workers do all their administration on their days off. Medical.... There is a lot of training that they do; they have to go to Borden for re-certification training annually. That's done on their days off. They're up there for a week.

Although they are not entitled to time off for those days off, I feel I have a moral responsibility to try to repay them as much as I can—especially in light of our lack of pay progress over the past few years.

An aggravating factor in all of that is the fact that my shift workers get more time off at once than day workers. Depending on the shift being worked, they get from four to six days off. All anybody can see is four days leave, fourteen days off, even though they have earned the time off in accordance with the CF policy.

The unfairness takes two forms: an inability to take leave during the summer because of personnel shortages, because of postings, releases, and so on and so forth; and not being able to accumulate leave. The above are all legitimate taskings or circumstances, but they always seem to happen over the summer. This places a continual strain on management because of the lack of flexibility in the system. The regular workload continues, as well as the obligation to take annual leave, no matter how many people are away. At times we have had to move people to different crews so that they had enough people to take leave. This is unfair, because my people are having to work more time than they normally would, where at times I may go below my minimum duty strength.

Members on extended deployments or taskings also cause problems, not because of themselves. First of all, a six deployment takes almost a year. Pre-rotation training, annual leave obligation, plus NATO leave take up a big chunk of time. A returning member has no choice but to take all their leave upon return if they have enough time. If they have a family and a rotation started in June or July, they have a really nice time of year to take leave: January, February, March. It doesn't matter whether or not the kids are in school; they have to take the leave.

• 1935

This also creates a vicious circle, because leave opportunities are limited in the fire hall because the platoons are short-handed while they are gone.

The end result of all of the above is that my people are less and less likely to get leave during attractive times, such as summer, Christmas and school breaks. I feel that shift workers should be given greater leeway to move outside the guidelines for day workers. As is all too common in the drive to save money and possibly enhance morale, a significant number of people are being penalized.

Thank you for allowing me to present my case.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Chief Petty Officer, you mentioned the physical fitness of trainees, was it?

CPO Fred Millar: Yes, sir. They have to have passed the firefighter physical fitness test before they can be accepted for the course.

There is a rumour that when the test was being done, some people were pencil-whipped.

Mr. Art Hanger: When you say they were “pencil-whipped”, do you mean they were just inducted in?

CPO Fred Millar: Written off. They didn't pass the test but they were given a pass.

Mr. Art Hanger: They didn't pass but they were given the clearance?

CPO Fred Millar: Yes, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Why would that be the case?

CPO Fred Millar: I have no idea.

Mr. Art Hanger: Did they not want to be there?

CPO Fred Millar: No, they wanted to be there. The initial course was directed members; they weren't volunteers. But the navy wanted the test to go off and that's what happened.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is that common?

CPO Fred Millar: I really can't say. The PERIs, or the physical recreation people, are the ones who did the testing.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay.

The other part I'm having a little bit of a hard time following is that, first, you're a trained firefighter.

CPO Fred Millar: Yes, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: You're deployed on, what, the ships?

CPO Fred Millar: Yes, sir. There are six firefighters on the helicopter-carrying ships.

Mr. Art Hanger: Your job is basically to deal with that helicopter when it comes down?

CPO Fred Millar: Helicopter firefighting. As well, we're responsible for all the fire extinguisher maintenance, the fire suppression systems, and breathing apparatus. On some ships they do hazardous materials response.

So they're more than just there for the helicopters.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. You're looking after the whole security side when it comes to a fire on the entire ship.

CPO Fred Millar: There are other trades responsible also, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Besides that.

CPO Fred Millar: Yes. There are the engineers and the hull technicians. They're all part of the damage control team that we're part of.

Mr. Art Hanger: That was my other question. You kept talking about the hull tech's responsibility, and there was some indication that they wanted to integrate those hull techs to do all the firefighters' tasks.

CPO Fred Millar: No, it wasn't all. It was just to close up for flying stations. But what would happen is that they would take two firefighters off the ship, assign two of these cross-trained hull technicians, and when they went to sea, they would work for the firefighter. When they were alongside, they would work for the senior hull tech.

The initial pressure was because of their workload, but the maintenance issues have sort of gone away, because the ships are more reliable now. The trial has gained a life of its own, though, and it has gone too far to turn it off, so we're just rolling along.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is it your concern, then, that these people aren't as qualified?

CPO Fred Millar: They're not as qualified. They're spending money for no reason. Hull technician is a specialist's trade. They get paid more than we do. So they take our two positions away and they end up putting more expensive people in, who have less training than we do.

Mr. Art Hanger: Is this a fact? Are you saying your position is going to be eliminated?

CPO Fred Millar: If the trial is successful and the admiral signs off on it, yes.

Mr. Art Hanger: But wouldn't it work both ways, that the firefighters are actually being integrated to operate the entire sphere as well?

CPO Fred Millar: No, we're shut out. They're a light blue uniform. They don't want anything to do with us.

Mr. Art Hanger: Aha.

• 1940

CPO Fred Millar: It's a support trade, not the hard sea trade.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes. And that differential is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $ 200,000.

CPO Fred Millar: That's over the four-year cycle, sir.

Mr. Art Hanger: Oh. Okay.

The other thing I wanted to ask about was the annual leave. Is everyone entitled to annual leave?

CPO Fred Millar: Yes, they are.

Mr. Art Hanger: This is part of the contract?

CPO Fred Millar: Twenty-five working days a year.

Mr. Art Hanger: Are you saying—and again, I didn't catch everything you said, because you were talking rather quietly and the mike wasn't up as loud as it should have been—that not everyone gets annual leave?

CPO Fred Millar: They all get it. The problem is that for me to get all my leave liabilities for my personnel, they have to work longer hours. It averages out that they work 40 hours a week over an 11-week period. Sometimes they get leave in. They have to give up some of their days off and go work on a crew so somebody on that crew can take leave, so they may lose two or three days of their days off.

Mr. Art Hanger: So if some are out on deployment, and others are off on regular hours, it cuts your numbers down, and the flexibility is not there.

CPO Fred Millar: Exactly. Right now we're doing our recertification training. It's two days of aircraft firefighting and two days of structural firefighting in Borden. We have to do it annually. It's in the NATO agreement.

The unfortunate part is that with the travelling and everything, to do the four-day course they have to be up there for seven or eight days. You can't just fly up there and fly back. You have to spend a day there and wait for the flight to come back. They do that on their days off, so the crew that's back ends up working extra days to cover off until these people come back from Borden, because I have to send them as crew.

Mr. Art Hanger: So this is going to continue, but the effort to correct this pressure point, if you will, is to remove your position, in a sense.

CPO Fred Millar: The problem is that right now we can't accumulate any leave. You have to take your leave. If we can't take our leave for whatever reason, the only.... Right now, if you're on an extended deployment they'll allow you to accumulate leave when you come back. It still requires high-level approval.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there are certain ways where it's approved that it will come under—well, say, out of the budget of the base commander of Halifax. The base commander doesn't want to lose any of his money, so he's not going to authorize people to accumulate leave. It's gone down to the commands now. This is where we're having problems.

It's a Canadian Forces policy for firefighters, and this is what they're allowed to have, but they're not getting the full benefits compared to what we call day workers, because that's what the policy is designed for. People can take 25 working days when they're working days and have no problem getting it in.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, do you have a short question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

Chief Petty Officer, I have a couple of quick questions for clarification. You said that certain people weren't required to pass the physical; they were just on paper given a pass. What would that be based on? Why would certain people be exempted?

CPO Fred Millar: They may have had friends that were doing the test, administering the test.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So there was no pattern to it, other than...?

CPO Fred Millar: No, it wasn't calculated, I don't think. It was circumstances, the way it went. And then finally what happened is they waivered the PT to run the course, because it had gone so far that they couldn't turn it off, but when it was set out, it was a critical prerequisite that they had PT.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay. Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, do you have some short questions?

Ms. Wendy Lill: I'm very curious about some of the issues that have been raised here. We've been talking about pensions and also pay. If you don't mind being put on the spot here, do you have any irregularities in terms of getting your pay? As a firefighter, which I know is a very hazardous position, are you satisfied with the kinds of pensions that exist for people who are leaving firefighting, the kinds of potential environmental problems that may arise later in life? I'm very concerned about those things.

CPO Fred Millar: On the latter part, I don't really have any information on that at all. I know people who've got out and who've contracted leukemia and things like that. I don't really know what kind of medical care they got from the pension board or whatever. Some people I do know have applied for pensions, and they got them, and there seemed to be very little problem and they were happy with it.

• 1945

Pay-wise, I have some people who work out of the firehall in Shearwater, who are part of what they call ship's personnel list. They're sort of a manning pool. I know they have a nightmare in their regular force with their sea duty allowance, because they're not in what they call the sea pay billet, and only get.... The day they report to the ship, they're paid. They start sea duty allowance and the day they leave, it stops, whereas people who are posted to the ship start it the day they get there and it doesn't stop until they get posted off, even if they're on leave or refit or whatever.

There's quite a disconnect between the time they leave the ship and get to the pay office. They have what they call updates—you know, changes in your status. In their case it's very similar to the reserves, in that it might be three or four months before they stop their sea duty allowance. Then all of a sudden the pay office calls up and says, you owe us $ 1,000; give it back. There are instances like that.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: A number of the questions I had were to do with the waiving of the physical fitness, and I think you've answered those.

You indicated that you have recertification how often?

CPO Fred Millar: We have to have it annually.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Is physical fitness a component of the recertification?

CPO Fred Millar: No, it's not part of the recertification, but we do have a physical fitness test that we have to pass annually. Right now we're in between physical fitness tests; we've gone to a new program. Currently the only one we have is the express test, but for the hull tech trial, they had to do our old test. It's a mile-and-a-half run and a bunch of push-ups, sit-ups, chin-ups, and things like that.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: And the hull techs and the tests for those serving in the capacity of firefighters—are they now having to have the annual, even though some of them may have had the physical fitness waived at the initial end?

CPO Fred Millar: I really don't know, ma'am. I'm not sure about that part.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: In your opinion, and I've dealt with—

CPO Fred Millar: I don't think they're doing physical fitness, no.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. What I was going to ask you is, I've dealt with firefighters in civilian life, and I know what a strenuous job it is and how important it is that they're physically fit. In your opinion, is that something you would want to see waived for regular firefighters?

CPO Fred Millar: No. We have to spend an hour per shift work doing PT. It's mandated that we have to do an hour a day.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes. Okay, thank you. You've raised some very significant concerns.

CPO Fred Millar: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you. Next is Ms. Patricia Tremblay.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay (Individual Presentation): Good evening.

I come to you this evening as a 14-year spouse of a leading seaman. He has served since August of 1981.

I would like to begin by thanking everyone for this opportunity to stand here and be able to speak freely. However, I cannot say that I am speaking without fear. That is because I have been battling panic attacks and depression for over ten years. It has been a long battle, sometimes winning, often losing. For this reason, I ask your forgiveness if I sometimes sound shaky.

I am not alone in my battle with depression and anxiety. A large number of military spouses in this area are presently under the care of psychiatrists or psychologists. Some of us take various medications, both prescription and non-prescription, to help with these problems.

Some people have confided in me that being left without their spouses for long periods of time serves to aggravate these conditions. The feelings of loneliness and isolation often become unbearable. However, many will tell you, sometimes bluntly, that this is their job, or the worst line, “You knew what you were getting into when you married”.

Well, as hard as it is sometimes, these people may be right, I guess. But there is one aspect of this life that we knew nothing about. Nobody told us that we'd be left alone and have to make ends meet with the sickening state of our finances. Dodging bill collectors, being afraid to answer the phone, trying to make the money stretch, and dealing with depression only provide further aggravation.

Yes, dear panel, we in the military, especially the lower ranks, are overdue, overburdened, and definitely underpaid. By this time, you have heard many stories concerning the state of our finances. I have a few more.

• 1950

Before making the decision to stand before you this evening, I spent some time speaking with other people—some members, but mostly spouses. I asked everyone what they would say were they given the opportunity to spend ten minutes at this podium. I received many suggestions and ideas, and for these I'm very grateful. The primary problem, however, always sauntered back to money, or should I say lack of money.

To begin, I wish to correct a common fallacy in the public eyes concerning the military. Our spouses are not civil servants. They do not have or belong to a union. They never receive overtime pay for anything at anytime. Our spouses are not paid bi-weekly, as civil servants are, but rather twice a month, on the 15th and 31st. Why the discrepancy in disbursement of pays when they're all paid by the same government? If the military received a pay every two weeks rather than twice a month, there would be two months of the year when they would be paid three times. Perhaps that could be a start towards helping us—a very small start, but nonetheless a place to begin.

The 15th and 31st of the month seem to take forever to arrive, especially for those who are living from pay period to pay period. No, wait, I take that back. This isn't living; it's existing, and some of us just barely. In desperation, many of us have been forced to take drastic measures.

I believe by now that everyone is aware of the article in Maclean's magazine in which Kathy Couture entered the pharmacy in Victoria and stole a bottle of Tylenol for her child's fever. Unfortunately, and sadly, stories like this are not unique.

In another way, we are also stealing when we write a cheque for groceries or things we require, knowing full well there's no money in our bank accounts to cover them. Sure, we repay them on the 15th or the 31st, but at what cost? The price is embarrassment, humiliation, and further financial hardship when the bank and businesses involved receive their extra fees for having a cheque go belly up.

Many of us also know the pain of taking our children to see the doctor, the doctor writing a prescription, and having to make our children wait until pay day to receive their medication. Some of us have been forced to cash in our RRSPs and education savings plans set aside for our children's futures just to cover the bills and put food on the table.

One friend told me just this past week she was forced to cancel a doctor's appointment because her gas tank was below the empty line and there wasn't any money left over for gas. We personally have a high car payment to cover while our car sits in the parking lot because there's no money to cover much-needed repairs.

Some of us have been forced into bankruptcy, which at one time was frowned upon by the establishment, or we have filed what is known here in Nova Scotia as the orderly payment of debts. These decisions have cost us a lot more than simple pride.

Without a decent increase in wages, the future looks bleak. How will our children get to university? Personally, my children require a computer. With the arrival of the information age, the computer has become a necessity, not a luxury. Many of our spouses, my own included, work at second jobs and are still unable to make ends meet. They work, and have worked, as security guards, pizza deliverers, bartenders, telephone sales people, and so on.

Now we have received another proverbial slap in the face in the form of a rent increase. Please don't tell me to look for another place to live because we cannot incur the additional costs that accompany a move, certainly not at this time.

I personally would like to be able to work outside the home. In the early years, when our children arrived, we made the decision that I would stay at home with them. With their father away for so much of the time, it was the right thing to do, and I shall never regret this decision. But we are paying dearly for not being a dual-income family. At this point in time, I would require training to be able to find a decent position, and unfortunately due to our financial restraints, training for me is merely a pipe dream.

At this time I would also like to mention the food bank within our military community. In December 1994 I attended an information session before my husband was to sail to the Adriatic Sea. At one point during the evening, the then-director of the Military Family Resource Centre was speaking about various services available. He informed us about the existence of a food bank. Some of us thought this was very enlightening. Maybe the military was emerging from the dark ages.

Unfortunately, no sooner had he informed us of the existence of such a service than he did an about face and said, and this is a quote, “Though I don't know why anyone in the military would require the services of a food bank.” There. He gave something good and then turned around and took it back by attaching a stigma to such a need. He gave with one hand and took away with a few ill-chosen words. Some people have confided to me that they're afraid to ask the military for such help, and many of us have received help from outside agencies.

Here's another fact that I'm sure you're not aware of. Should there ever be a mistake with your pay and you owe back money, they want it returned here and now. A few years ago one person told me they had to get a bank loan to reimburse a mistake made by the spouse's ship's pay office. They were informed by the pay office that if the money was not returned immediately all of their pay would be held back to cover the amount owed. This story is also not unique.

• 1955

While we are still on the subject of pay, I have another question. Why are our spouses not entitled to overtime? In August 1990, when HMCS Terra Nova was being made ready for the trip to the Persian Gulf, work was being performed around the clock. Both military members and civilian workers were involved. That, however, is where the similarities ended.

While the military members toiled equally as hard as the civilians, some of the civilian workers were receiving up to and including double time and a half. The total unfairness of this situation and many similar ones is absolutely absurd, preposterous, and a slap in the face to those who serve their country.

I would also like to address an issue concerning the deaths of parents of serving members and their spouses. From a financial standpoint, the travelling costs alone for a funeral of a loved one can set us back more than a year. This brings me to something I never knew about our military until 1995. Are you aware the military does not recognize the parent of a spouse as being any relation whatsoever to the member?

When my father passed away in January 1995 my husband was preparing to leave with the HMCS Montréal to the Adriatic. He was informed he was no relation to my father and therefore it was completely unnecessary for him to be with me. I thought my ears had deceived me. How could anyone dare to say my father was nothing to my husband? How dare anyone dictate my requirements while dealing with the grief of losing a parent? How dare anyone say I didn't need the help and support of my spouse at the passing of my beloved father? Unfortunately, I required the intervention of a psychiatrist, a chaplain, and too many tears to be able to have my husband at my side. It should never have come to that.

But I guess I was one of the luckier ones. Another lady told me she was in a similar situation and was not so lucky. While her husband was on a course in Borden his father passed away in Ontario. She was here at home in Dartmouth taking care of her children. The company her father-in-law worked for paid for her plane ticket to be with her husband at his time of bereavement. Unfortunately, she had never seen the inside of a plane and was absolutely terrified of having to fly. In desperation she turned to her husband's employers, the military. What she was requesting was some emergency financial help so her teenaged son could fly with her to Ontario to help ease her flight anxiety. She was not asking for a handout, just an emergency loan to cover the cost of her son's ticket.

She called many people, starting with the resource centre, who referred her to a chaplain, who referred her to a female social worker, who told her to get a prescription for Zantac and calm down, because there was nothing she could do for her because she was not related to her husband's father.

This policy regarding spouses does not seem to have any set rules and is therefore open to interpretation, or should I say misinterpretation.

When I was at my father's funeral I looked around at my sisters' and brothers' spouses, all given time from their places of employment with no questions asked. When I thought of the crying and pleading I had gone through I felt sickened and ashamed for my spouse's employer, the military.

The last point I wish to speak of this evening concerns health care for the military member. Some of our spouses are approaching middle age and would like to and deserve to have access to a regular physician. This is the time when regular checks should be kept on things such as blood pressure, cholesterol, and so on. Why are they not entitled to a have a regular doctor who could get to know them and in whom they would be able to confide and feel comfortable with? Everyone deserves this as Canadian citizens.

Many members have spoken about being afraid to see the doctors on base for anything more serious than a cold, and this is not right. Our members pay their taxes here in Nova Scotia and are therefore entitled to an NSI card and a doctor of their choosing. Whoever heard, in this day and age, of an employer dictating where the employees can receive their health care? Due to their hesitancy to see the doctor at the base hospitals, the members may be unknowingly placing their health in jeopardy, and this only provides us with another worry. We have enough already.

There are many other points to be made, and I'm sure they'll be covered. There have been many changes in the military unit I have witnessed over the years since I first married into this man's army—or should I say this man's navy. Some things have been good. I remember a time when the existence of a spouse was barely even recognized by the establishment, and now a spouse is standing here and speaking up about issues of major concern. That is progress. However, any progress made will always be overshadowed by the major burning issue, the financial one.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak. And to you, the members of the panel, please don't leave here, say that things have shocked you, go back to Ottawa and forget all about us. Please, we kindly ask you to make our needs known. Make them known to all Canadian citizens. Tell them what they who serve their beloved country have to face every day. You have the power to fight for change. Thank you, and God bless.

• 2000

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger wants to ask a question.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, I do want to ask you a question. Thank you for your presentation.

I think you've hit on some points that I got a little more clarification on. You spoke very candidly about your relationship with your husband and how your family was not recognized as part of the relationship to your husband, if it was on a compassionate basis, need.

What I'm going to say right now isn't going to make you feel any better. They will bend over backwards to make sure prisoners in this country get to a funeral, even of a friend.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: That's shameful.

Mr. Art Hanger: It is disgusting. That is what is in fact happening here. To see this happening on the military side just galls me no end, to recognize the inequity that is taking place, just in this area alone. There's one who is much more deserving than the other; I don't have to name which one is more deserving.

I understand there's a compassionate leave policy for the military, but it applies only to the husband and his immediately family.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Yes, his immediately family.

Mr. Art Hanger: His immediate family being what, his wife and children?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: His wife and children, his parents, but not the spouse's parents. They're considered no relation.

Mr. Art Hanger: I can understand in some cases it may be difficult if a person is deployed or on tour or posted overseas or whatever the case may be, in some of those instances, apart from the immediate family. But at the same time....

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: I can't understand that, personally.

Mr. Art Hanger: No.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Not when—

Mr. Art Hanger: I think you've raised an extremely good point that our committee should definitely look at in a very serious manner.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Thank you very much.

Mr. Art Hanger: You said many wives have to do extraordinary things to make ends meet, even sometimes write a cheque that may not—

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Yes, you bet.

Mr. Art Hanger: Does it happen frequently?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: You know full well it's going to go belly up, but you write it any way. You cover it when pay day comes, but at what cost? You have to pay the bank charges and the charges to the grocery store, and then you're in the hole even more.

It's just a way of life for us, especially in the lower ranks. This is how we live.

Mr. Art Hanger: How often would that happen?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: What I did was to talk to a lot of people. It has happened quite a few times to me in the last year or so, and people I've spoken with have all admitted to doing it in the last year or so, even at least four or five times—too often.

Mr. Art Hanger: Too often, yes. Would part of it be financial management, or is it just...?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: You can never get ahead. You cannot get ahead with the money that my husband makes. I don't know about the other ranks, but I know in the lower ranks you can't get ahead. So it has gone too far to blame financial mismanagement. You don't even live; you exist from pay day to pay day.

Mr. Art Hanger: Your husband is what rank?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: My husband is a leading seaman, with almost 17 years of service. He has been a leading seaman since 1985.

We have three children, but we're far from unique.

Mr. Art Hanger: Right.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: This is nothing new.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you very much.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Mr. Price.

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

You mentioned health care and regular check-ups, a regular doctor and all that. Do members not get regular check-ups as it is now?

• 2005

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Most of them tell me they're afraid to. The ones I've spoken to have said they're afraid to. There are too many stories about botched vasectomies and people dropping dead of heart attacks.

Mr. David Price: But you're saying they don't get a check-up once a year, a regular kind of check-up.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: My husband doesn't, and I wish he would.

A voice: They don't trust the military doctors. That's the bottom line.

Mr. David Price: Okay, but do they have to get a medical every year?

A voice: Yes. They're supposed to.

Mr. David Price: And do they have access to their blood tests after?

A voice: They have access only to military documents.

A voice: I've had one check-up in 11 years in the military.

Mr. David Price: Okay, that's what I was getting at.

A voice: And the only time you're allowed to see an outside specialist is if there is something definitely wrong with you. Other than that, you're in the hands of a military doctor, and I wouldn't send my dog to them.

Mr. David Price: Okay. When you do have a medical check-up, do you have access to your X-rays and to your blood tests and that type of thing?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: If they get the tests right, maybe. Seriously, I know one person who was sent for a sperm count after his vasectomy, and when they went back for the results, they did not do a sperm count, they did a culture. This person sat down and said “How's my count? Are we able to get pregnant? You know we don't want to.” And the doctor just looked at him and said “Sperm count? You don't have any infection. Isn't that good?” There was no sperm count ever done. It was a culture done. You think he wanted to go back a second time and have the sperm count done? I don't think so.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Chairman: Is that clear now?

A voice: As far as dental goes—

The Chairman: Can you come to the microphone please and identify yourself?

Master Seaman Joseph André Champoux (Individual Presentation): My name is Master Seaman Champoux. I've been posted to the Halifax area most of my career for the last 14 years.

As far as dental is concerned, they are very strict on dental, they keep a very close eye on it, and if we don't show up for an appointment we will be charged for being where we're not supposed to be.

As far as medical is concerned, they do not keep a very close eye on it. I just found out this year that I'm six years overdue for a medical. I went and got it. You must get a medical if you're about to get promoted. That's one of the prerequisites before they'll promote you. As soon as they get the message, they ship you off to the hospital. Other than that, they don't keep track of your medical history.

I talked to the hospital and they specifically told me that it's the member's responsibility to make sure he gets one. If you go to the hospital every four months, they'll give you one if you ask. I don't know if they'll give you a hard time about it. I've never been through that, but if you ask for one, they'll give you one.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Thank you very much for coming here tonight. I'd like to ask you some questions.

I have one question about the need for families to keep together when your spouses are at sea. I have heard people say that they rack up enormous telephone bills and it's simply in the business of trying to have children have some contact with their father over a five-month period, for wives and husbands to talk about family illnesses, things like the departing of a spouse, of a parent, and just the obvious need to communicate, which is what families are all about. Someone asked me, why isn't it possible for the military to offer some telephone mercy for military families? And I thought what an amazing concept that we really have to be looking for some sort of mercy. I'd like you to talk to that issue. What exactly would help you to be more connected with your spouse when he is at sea or away?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Firstly, Ms. Lill, when people talk about—especially in that article I read—people going out in the field or going on ships and getting these extra $ 300 or whatever, that wouldn't even touch the phone bills of people who really want to stay in touch. We've been married now almost 14 years, and after the trip he made after my father passed away, we racked up over $ 2,000 in phone bills.

A voice: My goodness.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Needless to say, it took a while to pay. At one point we even had our phone disconnected because we weren't paying. We weren't keeping up with the payments they wanted. I realize it was our own fault, but it's the only communication that you have, especially at a time like that.

Maybe they could come up with something like what AT&T or Sprint, I believe, has, where it's so many cents a minute here in Canada. Why couldn't something like that be applied? Why couldn't we have just a little bit of a break? Because what they call “sea pay” doesn't even go near that. It doesn't touch that. We just need something, something to help out. Like you said, the words “phone mercy”, that was good. I like that.

• 2010

It's really hard. One of my friends had a 20-minute call from Ireland. It cost $ 55. It's disgusting. But you want to stay together, and you do what you have to do. If it weren't for the sanctity of marriage, a lot of us wouldn't still be married today, because it's not an easy life, and that's just one of the things you try to do to stay together when they're away, the telephone calls. But they get out of hand, how they get out of hand, especially the European ones and the ones from the Caribbean. Then you fight about we're on the phone too long, maybe we should hang up now, or no, no, this is costing so much a minute. The next thing you know, you are fighting and you are spending your time on the phone fighting, which is a waste of $ 50. Those are just some of the pressures.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

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

Before I get to my question, I think Mr. Hanger raised an interesting issue in regard to the business about prisoners in Canadian federal prisons being able to visit or attend the funerals of friends. I'm certainly aware of that policy, but I think it would be important to get information on that on a comparative basis. Perhaps Mr. Hanger could provide the committee with information on that before our next meeting. I'll leave that with Mr. Hanger and get to my question.

In terms of the financial difficulties members of the forces find themselves in, from contact that you have with friends within the Canadian Forces, are you aware of the level of bankruptcy among Canadian Forces members?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: I'm led to believe that it is high. Do you know what filing the orderly payment of debts means?

Mr. David Pratt: Yes.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Here in Nova Scotia, they also have what is called the orderly payment of debts. It is a section of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act where all of your debts are consolidated by a court order and your interest rate is lowered. It means no credit for seven to ten years. You'll never own a house, as far as I'm concerned.

The bankruptcy has grown in the last few years. A few years ago, you were afraid in the military to go bankrupt because you were always told that it would be a reflection, the proverbial black mark, on your career. I'm not aware of the exact number, no, but I do know personally of a lot of people who have done this.

Mr. David Pratt: As you can appreciate, we've heard the issue of money in every location we've been to. Do you feel the Canadian Forces does enough by way of helping families do financial planning with what little resources they have?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: No. What help?

Mr. David Pratt: There are no seminars that you can attend, that sort of thing?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: If you want, you can get help with making up a budget, but when you have nothing to budget, what's the point? We've asked for help. We've had budgeting classes up the ying yang, but if you have nothing to budget or you can't get out of the hole and you're constantly digging deeper into this hole.... Okay, so they got a little raise there the first of April. I live in Shannon Park, and as of August 1, my raise is gone. If I want to keep a garage, they put it up from $ 20 a month to $ 50 a month for a bloody garage that is falling apart, but because Shannon Park is so small you need that for the extra space.

Everyone I have talked to in my community who has a garage—like I said, I asked a lot of people what they would say if they came here—have all said the same thing: We have to give up the garage; we can't pay $ 50 a month for the garage. Where are we going to put the stuff that's in it? Everything is at a loss, there's no end in sight. There's no sign of anything getting any better. It's a pretty shabby way for people who defend and serve the country to have to live. That's it.

Mr. David Pratt: I just wanted to make one other comment, and that is on your suggestion that members of the Canadian Forces be paid once every two weeks rather than twice a month. That is a suggestion we've heard before. I'm hoping that it is one of the more workable ones as far as—

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: It goes beyond my believing. We're all paid by the same government, so why do civil servants get paid every second Wednesday?

• 2015

In my husband's second job, he gets paid every two weeks, and his pay, as small as it is, comes a lot faster than the 15th and 31st of the month—unless it's February, and then you've got 28 days in the month and you're a little luckier.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: Ms. Tremblay, we visited the Family Resource Centre this morning, or one of them on base.

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: Yes, I saw you on TV.

The Chairman: They showed us a computer there that you can use to send e-mail to your spouse on the ship. Do you know if that is used a lot by spouses of sailors?

Mrs. Patricia Tremblay: I have no idea.

A voice: I do know that it is used quite a bit. The dilemma is that there is no way for the individual member...other than to sit down at the terminal on the ship and go looking for their message; therefore, if she is trying to send something personal, such as “Your father is not getting any better”, everybody on ship would be looking for their e-mail....

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]...all that, but you can't send anything personal. In order to avoid the phone calls, it would be nice for the member to know that Dad's getting worse, but it's not necessary for everyone on ship to know that.

Ms. Carol Preston (Individual Presentation): Can I clarify this a little? I'm with the Military Family Resource Centre and I take care of a lot of the communications we have.

The Chairman: Yes. Just come to the microphone and identify yourself.

Ms. Carol Preston: My name is Carol Preston. I take care of a lot of the communications between the ships and the families left behind.

I think what the lady means here about the non-confidential matters is “familygram”, something everyone can look at. The ships that do have e-mail set up right now...it is more confidential. There is usually a yeoman or somebody on the ship who downloads them and the members gets it.

Since January there have been over 5,000 communications back and forth from the ships. So it is a very successful way of communicating.

A voice: How many computers do we have access to? Is there just the one?

Ms. Carol Preston: No. At the Military Family Resource Centre in Shannon Park they have three computers. Our centre is open 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

A voice:

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we can't hear the conversations here at all.

The Chairman: We can't pick up the conversation here.

Did you have anything else to add?

Ms. Carol Preston: No. I was just clarifying that there is confidentiality.

Ms. Beverly Beaulieu (Individual Presentation): Hi. Good evening.

The Chairman: Could you identify yourself.

Ms. Beverly Beaulieu: My name is Beverly Beaulieu and I'm a friend of Trish's.

I spoke with Ms. Lill on Monday night when she was preparing her speech for this evening. I'm the one who has spoken about asking for some mercy, for lack of a better term.

I don't agree that the e-mail is the best form of communication for those people who don't have computers. I know that on two different ships it depends how the ship wants to use the e-mail, whether it will go directly to your home or through the centre and then to your home.

I'm still asking, advocating, and wishing for some sort of phone card that the members could use to give us the rates we can get here in North America. I don't think that's too much to ask to communicate with people, whether it's an emergency or not. It's a matter of a lot of people having budgets and going over budget when they're away for three, four, six months and accumulating phone bills. You don't have to explain why you're talking, but you should be able to get a rate comparable to what AT&T and Sprint are passing out around the country.

People who work for the government or any business...I think a lot of people have phone budgets or they have a discount on their phone. Why can't they have the same thing? They all have a member number. Why couldn't something be linked up where they have a card they can use that will go to that account, where they can get 10¢ or 15¢ a minute, or even 25¢?

My husband tried to call me from Ireland. I was able to phone him back, but not before it cost maybe $ 5 or $ 10 to initially get together. I was lucky that that phone booth happened to accept the call. So he waited out in the rain for me to call at a prearranged time so that I could get him for 25¢ a minute. But if he goes the other way around, it's very expensive. To call the ship, there are only usually one or two lines available for 200 people on the ship. To try to call direct from home to a ship in a foreign port is very difficult, as the line is usually busy.

• 2020

For people who really want to stay together, people who love their families, love their husbands, the physical separation is enough, but the spiritual and emotional separation is much crueller. And when you have it dictated by a phone call that may cost $ 50 for 20 minutes, and you know your husband's getting antsy because it's costing money to communicate, that's really not fair. I think that in this day and age something could be done. It would be a small thing, but it would be a big thing for a lot of families.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much. Thanks to you both.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Mike Innes.

Mr. Mike Innes (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the standing committee.

My name's Michael Robert Innes. I was released from the military on a 3A medical category on December 23, 1997, stating that I was unfit for military service in any environment.

I currently receive my military pension, as well as a medical pension from Veterans Affairs. These two incomes combined make up 40% of my income prior to being released. I was told that due to my medical condition I was entitled to SISIP. I filled out the forms required before my release and was told that it would fall in place after release. It was my understanding that my insurance through SISIP would bring me up to 75% of my salary after release.

Although I have been released from military duty because of my disability, SISIP has denied my claim, stating that I do not meet the definition of disabled. I can appeal this decision within one year. I applied for Canada disability pension but was informed that I need to obtain my military records. I have done so through the Access to Information Act, but this takes time, approximately four to five months.

I have a decision from the Charlottetown medical review board that my illness is attributable to my service in a special duty area in Croatia, the former Yugoslavia. Subsection 21(1) of the Pension Act provides entitlement for a disability that is attributable to or was incurred during or aggravated by military service. I receive 25% of this currently.

I am in the process of undergoing mandatory medical evaluation to determine the correct assessment for my disability. This process takes several weeks, if not months, depending on Veterans Affairs, for test results, then time for the board to sit and evaluate. I was diagnosed with writer's syndrome disease, reactive arthritis, chronic fatigue syndrome, and sleep disorder.

The quality of my life has been affected to the point where I can't work, ride a bike, play hockey, go camping, swimming, rough-house with my kids, do household chores—God bless washing dishes. These are things I used to take for granted. Showering and getting dressed is difficult for me. The physical activity is painful, debilitating, and affects every area of my life. I limit my activities and try not to let the illness regress to the point of being bedridden, because it happens very easily, and it's harder to come back each time.

My family, as well as myself, had to make adjustments in our lifestyles, dealing with limitations of this illness. This has been a financial burden to the point where I have resorted to using RRSPs as well as borrowing money from family members to get by for the last five months.

I am presenting some documented letters that relate to the health concerns expressed by the medical officers who were serving in theatre with us on Operation Harmony tour. The health concerns deal with exposure to biomedical hazardous waste, biochemical hazardous waste, PCBs and bauxite waste, contaminated dirt and soil, which was present during time of service to country.

The main concern was neither Canada nor the UN provided required environmental specialists to support and identify these problems to avoid contact that may result in present or future health problems.

• 2025

Recommendations:

—Members released under 3A unfit military service should have all concerns and issues addressed and put into administrative order to activate this process and have all administrative release procedures implemented and functioning in place prior to release.

—The agencies need to recognize each other and communicate or correspond with each other to help simplify this process to achieve the common goal of all involved, including the members this would apply to.

—If members are incapacitated or unable to initiate these processes because of a medical condition, a system should be in place to help the members' families, with DND's cooperation to come to the home of the individual not able to work or leave the home to ensure all release procedures are completed and in place prior to release.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Price.

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

Thank you, Mike, for coming. I do have a couple of questions.

How long were you in the military?

Mr. Mike Innes: I had 15 years service. I was a corporal. I was a materiels technician 441, land environment. In simpler terms, I was a welder, machinist, and textile worker.

Mr. David Price: Okay. That's fine.

Right now, you're receiving a pension?

Mr. Mike Innes: I receive 25% of a medical pension from Veterans Affairs.

Mr. David Price: Okay, but you're not receiving any pension such as a release pension of any kind?

Mr. Mike Innes: No. I have my pensionable time in service, CCP. I have my medical pension through Veterans Affairs, which is only 25%, because it is an interim assessment. In other words, because the medical review board in Charlottetown said it's attributable to my service in Croatia, they gave me 25% to start with. But if you take both pensions and put them together, I'm only earning 40% of my total income that I used to earn as a member of the armed forces.

Mr. David Price: Okay.

Why were you sent to Croatia? What was the exact job you were doing there?

Mr. Mike Innes: I was doing first-line maintenance for 1 PPCLI. Basically, I would travel out to where the rifle companies would be, which at that time would be Charlie, Bravo, and Alpha companies. That would be 50 to 100 miles I'd have to travel to get to the company. Then I would go into their AO, area of operation, and I would do any work they required, any welding, any machining, any textile work, anything to better their lives and improve their living conditions.

Mr. David Price: Okay. You mentioned that you thought you were probably exposed to something there. Do you have any idea what?

Mr. Mike Innes: Well, the papers that I have here.... I'll read the sentence:

This member has been exposed to bauxite and PCBs for six months while in Croatia on Operation Harmony, rota 4. Members of the northern part of the AOR, namely Delta Company, received the most persistent exposure.

Throughout our AOR were many destroyed and damaged transformers, all potential PCB exposure risks. Neither Canada nor the UN, as I said, required environmental specialists' support for Operation Harmony.

Also, when I was there we would fill sandbags. They were buying dirt from the Serbs to fill the sandbags because the UN had run out of its contract, or whatever the case may be, and the commanders felt the mission had to be completed. The dirt contained human feces and human bones.

Mr. David Price: Did you know at that time that it contained anything dangerous?

Mr. Mike Innes: Sure. We cracked the dirt open and the bones popped right out. The commanding officers and everybody there were helping us to fill the dirt into the sandbags. Nobody said anything, nobody did anything.

Mr. David Price: Right now do you know of other people who have the same problems you do and who were in the area at the time?

Mr. Mike Innes: Yes, I do. I was told I was one of 33 off my tour.

Mr. David Price: Do you know of any other theatres that ended up with the same type of problem?

Mr. Mike Innes: You mean other rotations prior to me and after me?

Mr. David Price: Right.

Mr. Mike Innes: Yes, I do know individuals.

Mr. David Price: With the same situation?

Mr. Mike Innes: Yes.

Mr. David Price: When was the tour?

Mr. Mike Innes: I did my tour in March to October of 1994.

• 2030

Mr. David Price: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You made a comment that the agencies should work together to make things easier for people who are disabled and trying to get a pension. So you mean DVA and the Department of National Defence?

Mr. Mike Innes: DVA, National Defence, and SISIP.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. So you don't feel that happened?

Mr. Mike Innes: No, not at all, not at all. I'm having problems with Veterans Affairs today. Even though I've received 25% of the pension, I still don't have a case worker. Nobody will sit me down and explain the procedures. And I realize it's up to me to initiate it, or one of my family members if I can't do it myself, but I have initiated the proper process and paperwork, and I'm just being stonewalled.

I've had an attendant's allowance. One of the other gentlemen up here mentioned earlier that he found out he was entitled to an attendant's allowance for his wife to take care of him. Indirectly I found out the same way.

What happened was I phoned Veterans Affairs and I talked to the individual who's supposed to come to the home and interview you to see just exactly what the story is. The individual told me they would be at the home within two weeks. This is now a month later. I have not seen nor heard from that individual.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Did you find that you had to produce information for DVA that you'd already produced for the other, or was it all different material?

Mr. Mike Innes: I produced this material right here. I was refused by DVA in the beginning. When I first applied to DVA, I was flatly refused. As soon as I produced this paperwork, two weeks later I had a phone call saying DVA concurred that—

Mr. Leon Benoit: “This paperwork” being what?

Mr. Mike Innes: The paperwork that I handed to the committee about the contaminated dirt.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay.

Mr. Mike Innes: There's a little story that goes with this paperwork, if you'll permit me.

When I came back, I was ill and I was bedridden for two years. I laid in a bed basically just like I'd been bitten by a scorpion, and I stayed in bed almost 24 hours of the day, in constant pain. I couldn't digest food, couldn't use the washroom properly, couldn't get up and walk up a flight of stairs, and a whole other host of problems, which will take too much time to go into.

While I was at home, other members of the unit were being called in to sign pieces of paper like this, because the medical officers had sent this paperwork off to Ottawa. Ottawa fired a message back—DND I imagine, NDHQ—stating that the medical documentation of all the members serving in that area would be annotated. When they started to annotate the documentation, I went in and inquired why I hadn't been called in or been informed so that my medical docs could be annotated. I was told at the time that it didn't pertain to me and it didn't matter, to forget about it.

All of a sudden the BOR in 1 PPCLI produced another set of paperwork similar to this that had three paragraphs. One paragraph stated that certain members were exposed to biochemical hazardous waste, another paragraph said they were exposed to medical hazardous waste, and another paragraph said they were exposed to PCBs and bauxite as well as contaminated dirt and soil. The message ended up....

I was called in by the MO to sign this, but by the time I got in to sign it in front of the MO, Ottawa had fired another message back and told them they were to stop annotating the medical docs and they were to take the annotations off everybody's medical docs, and then they shredded the paperwork. And I stood there and watched it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How do you know that?

Mr. Mike Innes: Because I stood right there and watched it. I watched the medics annotate the medical docs.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But how do you know Ottawa...? You said Ottawa phoned and said to take it off—

Mr. Mike Innes: I was told by the medical officer who was treating me at the time.

• 2035

Mr. Leon Benoit: And who did he say had done this?

Mr. Mike Innes: He said that the reason Ottawa had taken the stance that they took was that because of the paperwork that was raised, they had opened themselves up to lawsuits or that people potentially might be misusing or abusing this information. It did say that it was for future medical references in case an individual became sick.

Well, I didn't become sick in the future. I was sick right from the day I got home from the tour.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Does it seem reasonable to you that anyone who knew about this information would want to bury it or hide it? Does it seem reasonable to you that you would have to get your file through access to information? Are you surprised your file wasn't lost by DVD?

Mr. Mike Innes: I don't know. I still haven't received my file. I've applied for access to information, but I haven't received my file yet. The problem I get everywhere I go, whether it's DVA, SISIP, or Canada Disability, everybody says they need the information from access to information. Then, of course, I have to apply, which I've done.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Does that seem to you that the military is taking care of its people when they require that you have to get your own medical information through access to information before you can—

Mr. Mike Innes: No, I don't think they're taking care of people. The reason I say that is because I expressed my concerns to my commanding officer, the MO who was treating me, and to the base surgeon I was dealing with. I expressed my concern that I was a 34-year-old man who was looking, after 15 years of service, at having to get out on Civvy Street with a wife and two kids, a 9-year-old and a 10-year-old. Because Calgary was closing—that's where I was stationed at the time—their priority was to make the move to Edmonton. So for anybody who had a medical category or an illness, there was a rush to get them out because they didn't want to leave them behind in Calgary.

So I was told that I had no choice: either I get out right then and there or the base commander would order me out of my PMQ and put me out on Civvy Street. They told me that was his right to do that. That was his mandate.

Now, whether that's true or not, I don't know. I just went by what I was told. At the time I was sick and I was just trying to ensure that my family would be able to live on Civvy Street if I couldn't work.

All I've ever wanted is to have the quality of my life back. That's all I've ever expressed to my commanding officers or the MOs I was dealing with. I flatly stated to them that nobody was doing any medical follow-up on me.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So you're getting no medical treatments now?

Mr. Mike Innes: No. And I haven't been. It's four years later and I still haven't—

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you been asking for it?

Mr. Mike Innes: Oh, yes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: And what kind of answer do you get?

Mr. Mike Innes: They say to go get a family doctor. I went and got a family doctor. Do you know what my family doctor said to me? He wanted my medical documentation from the military. He said he couldn't do anything for me until I had medical documentation from the military. My hands were tied. I suppose his hands were tied as a family physician.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Have you heard from others who are in similar situations of trying to get medical help now to deal with a serious illness but not having access to their own medical documentation?

Mr. Mike Innes: Yes. I know a gentleman in Ontario like that. He went for a treatment but was advised not to. The military persisted that he should try to rehabilitate himself and get himself back to work. He went back to running eight to ten kilometres a day.

This was common in the unit I was in. Every morning, the least you would do would be eight kilometres, whether you walked or ran, had a rucksack, put your fighting order on, or carried your weapon. Then you would go do your eight-hour-a-day job and whatever else afterward that the army demanded of you, because you're a soldier 24 and 7.

• 2040

He had a relapse. He ended up going blind in one eye and was bedridden. He was told by another doctor, because he was hospitalized, that if he did it again, the least he could expect was to end up in a wheelchair, if not dead.

I expressed the same concerns to the military, through the medical community, that when I tried to go back to work as well, I also got worse, and ended up bedridden again. I couldn't feed myself, couldn't dress myself, and stuff like that.

I told them that if I need to make a change to civilian life because of the medical condition, well, so be it. I can be man enough to do that. My only concern, as I said, was to make sure that everything was in place prior to me getting out.

Right from the MO to the administrative officers to administration personnel, they would show me CFTOs, QR and Os, or whatever it was, and they would say, “This is what you're entitled to”, but when it came time to get it, everybody said no.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Innes, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Innes.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Chairman: Mr. Al Lannon, please.

Mr. Al Lannon (Individual Presentation): Thank you for the opportunity to come before the east coast hearing committee this evening.

My son, Corporal Glenn Lannon, with a medal he earned over at the Golan Heights as a peacekeeper, tonight is out in the car. He can't come in here for two reasons.

He was classified as having, one, a lower mechanical back injury, and two, consequential from the back injury, a nervous condition.

I wish he could come in this evening, but he can't. I've been going out every half hour—perhaps you noticed; maybe you didn't—to check in on him. I'd like to kindly thank the gentleman who moved me up here tonight.

This is not to take from anybody else from this specific area, or anybody directly in the military, but I've been given permission to speak on behalf of my son. This is how I feel. I hope some day someone can talk to him, because he has a story you'll never believe.

He was 24 years old, with a wife of 23, a boy 3 years old, and a baby several months old. Out at Shilo, Manitoba, he was assisting a cardiac arrest patient of 300-and-some pounds and ended up with his back injured. When he went to the military....

You won't believe this. I'll do the best I can, as I said, because I walked the walk, talked the talk, and I'm finished. I just hope anybody here, either MPs or those directly with the military, will listen.

I fault the response of the Canadian Armed Forces for not keeping up to date since our son's injury in 1995. There is no system in place, and the lack of caring and compassion leaves much to be desired.

You have created a tarnished image. The tearing apart of the hearts and souls of your personnel must stop—now, not later. You are the coldest outfit I've ever dealt with. I have 30 years of working as a public servant, and I've seen nothing like this.

I'm not talking about the everyday soldier, the private or the corporal. I'm going to move it up a little higher, and then we'll go right to the top.

Sensitivity and empathy are dearly lacking, and now that I can walk the walk and talk the talk, I feel the military's main objective is always preparation for war—a killing machine. Those soldiers who cannot cut it are out the door. The door's closed, and they're forgotten about, and on their own.

Nothing's changed since World War I, World War II or the Gulf War. The inhumane way soldiers and their families are treated leaves much to be desired.

• 2045

I stated I did not want a confrontation, but I requested someone come sit with us and explain our son's situation, which had taken us to hell and back. We saw the world of our son, his wife, and their two young children torn apart. We saw the weekly news and read the newspapers and realized our son wasn't the only one.

I forewarned the personnel issue adviser in Ottawa, the lieutenants, colonels, and majors that I wasn't going away. I was before them seeking justice, compensation, and hopefully a successful closure.

So for my son, the Mackinnons, the Wheelers, the Hurleys, and the people who were up here tonight, my mandate is this; one, I'm on the way to seeking a legal assessment; two, I'm going to lobby against this atrocity and get all the names of the injured soldiers and those who died, whether in service or not. I will also go public, have a tribunal, bring a joint lawsuit, and see that justice is served for all concerned.

On behalf of my son, Corporal Glenn Lannon, injured carrying out his duty lifting a cardiac arrest patient at the Brandon Hospital in Winnipeg, Manitoba, February 15, 1995, it's been three years and three months since voluntary release rules were requested due to pain and stress, a medic release was established, and he was classified with lower mechanical back pain. During this ordeal, our son was doing regular duties for approximately a year—lifting, pushing machinery, three 24-hour' duties. I don't understand it.

Finally, he was placed on approximately another year of light duties, and then finally placed in a canteen serving bars and pop—quite demoralizing.

Our son experienced personal bashing against his person. A warrant officer made reference to him faking his condition. A civvy came aboard him one time when he had a certified handicapped permit—this is on military record with the military police—and my son was just shaken and devastated. He went home and broke down, and my wife had to send him back to speak to the person in charge.

I remind you, my son and my daughter-in-law had been away for seven and a half years in the military. He just lived outside the base in Shiloh. He wasn't what you would call the most sociable guy in the world, but he loved the military. It was his life. It was his way. Now his world has fallen apart and he can't explain it. I've tried to understand it. That's what I'm doing here tonight. That's why I've made the statements I've made.

He was twice denied leave or a break, and he was told by the base surgeon to keep the pace. He was refused the right to get a second opinion on his back injury and told he would have to pay for it if he did.

Our son arrived home in March 1997. We were all devastated. He was not the guy we saw go away years ago to join the military. His wife, Deborah, broke down and cried and said he wasn't the man she married.

We've done most of this on our own. I started calling the military in Ottawa, the personnel issue adviser, requesting someone to come to talk to us. It has been three years and three months since our son's injury and we started calling Ottawa. The first inquiry was wrong, and it dealt with our son's release. What we wanted addressed was why our son was not released immediately or sooner; the mistreatment of our son; the refusal to get a second opinion and the fact he had to pay for it himself; and the duties placed on him, especially the one of time to respond in a fair, up-front manner.

• 2050

If time permits, these are some of the notes of my son:

Just in case I don't make it [here tonight] I started to write what I thought would be a quick summary of what took place and some of the events surrounding my now permanent disability...occurred in the military during the line of my duty.

When I stopped to take a look and I reread what I was writing I then realized I was again at square one, writing and explaining what happened to myself and consequently to my family. I am here today to make the military aware once again of what happened to myself and family throughout and after being released from the Canadian Armed Forces.

I also hope my presence today before you

—he thought he'd be in here tonight—

will encourage others to come forward and tell their stories! What I and my family went through hopefully can be prevented from happening to other military personnel and their families. Enough time has been wasted. Let's deal with the reality of what isn't happening!

I know it will take time to put in place a system that will tend to the needs of those injured in the military and their families.

Therefore, I believe it is for “what they don't do!”, that the Canadian Armed Forces are liable and accountable, for which we are seeking legal counsel May 21st of this year.

Thank you Glenn Lannon.

If anybody here tonight on this panel can help me.... As I told you, I told the personnel adviser in Ottawa—I won't mention her name tonight—when I called her from Cape Breton, I said, “Ma'am, if anything happens to my son, I'm coming to Ottawa and I'll bring his ashes or his body, I'll bring his medal, and I'll bring his picture.” She told me, after months and months, she didn't realize.

First she said, “Mr. Lannon, I can't discuss anything with you because of confidentiality”. I said, “To hell with confidentiality. I served with the government for 30 years, Ma'am, and I know what confidentiality means. If anybody's welfare is at stake, confidentiality goes out the window.” I checked it legally. I've fought battles with the government. I've been in unions for 30 years. I'm in the closing of institutions here in this province, and I'm not proud of it.

The military had the audacity to answer this way: “His inquiry is at the level of the minister, now Mr. Eggleton.” Prior to that it was going to the former minister, Doug Young, but because of political things, things changed, and we were left hanging.

When I went to a federal MP in Truro, she asked me, “Your son's a man. How come he didn't speak up?” She said, “I have to seek out the real people when they ask to be assisted.” That was all bungled up, as I said.

Now we have an MP by the name of Mr. Bill Casey; he's in Ottawa representing our area here. Bill's called a number of times to find out what's wrong. Major Muzitis told me—he's been talking to me for months—all they had to do was dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s. Well, pardon me, but how long does it take to dot an “i” and cross a “t”? Maybe I made the mistake. I don't know. But I don't want it again.

Somebody said to me, “Maybe, Al, you shouldn't have had the military investigate themselves.” I'll answer that one later, as I said, when I get the legal opinion. But it's time that somebody better get the message to someone up there that hey, this is an atrocity, and it's sad. That's all I can say now. I hope someday I have a package, or you can request a package from the minister, but as I said, we're waiting and waiting and waiting.

Veterans Affairs gives him a pension, for a family of four, of $ 126. He comes home, we look at it, we break down and cry. I told him at first I didn't want him to cash it. That was all the money he had. He cashed in his RRSPs, same story as people told tonight. Now he may lose his home. I don't know. He and his wife made a pact in Shilo, Manitoba. They didn't understand the system up there. They fell through the cracks. They went to the social worker, and the social worker told them, “Go out and socialize more.” There's something definitely wrong.

I asked the majors and the lieutenants.... When I dealt with a major here locally in the province—I won't mention his name—when he spoke to me he was kind, but he said at the end of it that he was on the side of the military. I said, “Pardon me, Major. I'm not talking sides here. I'm talking my son's welfare and my son's life. That's what I'm talking and fighting for.”

I went to a military lawyer, the highest here in Nova Scotia. He said to me, “Al, you'd better be prepared for a fight, because when the military shuts the door, you can't open it.” Well, I'm going to send a message to the minister. I'm going to Ottawa unless somebody can help me otherwise and I'm going to pull the door open. I'm going to make people aware of what's happening, and not only to my boy.

• 2055

As for next question I asked, nobody will touch it: Where are the hospitals with the people who have lost their minds? Where are they? Are they out somewhere, pardon the expression, with a tag on them? Are they left and forgotten? Who represents them? Who speaks for them? I don't know. It's scary.

I read reports from the Chief of the Defence Staff in which Maurice Baril says he's there for the soldiers and their families. By cripes, I wish somebody could get an update on our inquiry that's been just hanging tight.

I don't know if it's because you people came to the east coast or what it is, but until tonight, no one has come to knock on our door and ask to sit down with me.

If my son made mistakes, I'll live with that. But I know one thing: my boy isn't 100% wrong.

That's all I have to say. I'm sorry if I seem loud and emotional. I apologize, but I hope this gives you enough.... From what I heard tonight, I feel more secure about going back. I can't leave my boy too much longer in the car because this is the way it's been since we've been dealing with the military. We go in, he'd try to answer the questions, and then he'd have to come out because of this nervous condition. We're waiting to see specialists.

That's another thing. The time goes on and on. He has to go in, and to the best of his ability with memory loss, he tries to answer the questions. Who's to help him? I don't see any advocates. I don't see anyone. It's sad.

That's all I say.

The Chairman: I believe Ms. Lill has a question for you.

Ms. Wendy Lill: I guess I was not prepared for what I was going to hear tonight from the people in this room, and I guess I feel....

I do have a question. I want to know where your son lives. I want to know who is helping him now and what kind of—

Mr. Al Lannon: My son was posted in Shiloh, Manitoba.

Ms. Wendy Lill: Where does he live now?

Mr. Al Lannon: He's now come back to Truro. He bought a home. The military released him. They gave him what you call your basics that go with your release. He purchased a home just outside of Truro near Stewiacke. He's living out there with his wife and two children. His wife can't go to work because of his condition. He can't look after the two children. He's limited. He can walk, but only with the aid of a cane, an Obus, and all the things he uses. He has a permit for the handicapped.

We took him to a Dr. Dhawan, a specialist. Dr. Dhawan wondered why he didn't go back to transportation. How in the name of God is the guy going to go back to transportation with a back injury and with his nervous condition? Now he has memory loss, and he can't come in here this evening.

Now we're in the midst of Canada Pension denying him because they told him he had to be totally disabled. I guess that means I must have to carry him on my back and put his body inside the Canada Pension board. With SISIP, on the same thing, they denied him. But they said that if we can prove this consequential nervous thing, they'll talk to us.

I don't understand it. The guy paid into the plan. I don't want anything if he hasn't earned it or he doesn't have a right to it, but listening to everybody in this room tonight, I know one thing: people are not getting a fair shake. I wished I had spoken first here tonight, but now I'm glad I waited because of what I felt inside. Now I know. My mother always told me to go by my sixth sense and my vibes.

As for the military, you can check his record. On his record in the military, an NCO by the name of Sergeant Brown said the military should have acted sooner and quicker, and that he felt bad. They classified my son as an exemplary soldier who was right and who had a promising career.

Ms. Wendy Lill: There's just one thing I guess I have a question about. We have people here who have come before us. This committee has been hearing many people. I'm wondering what our responsibility is on an individual level to the people who are making the submissions. I guess the question is, do we act in some way specifically in terms of inquiries and looking into the very specific complaints that are coming from the floor in these events? I'm asking that question as a member of this committee. I'm an alternate here for this particular session because this is my riding. I guess I'm asking that on your behalf as well.

Mr. Al Lannon: My son, Madam, is prepared to sell his home. I just took out an RRSP, and we're going to be speaking with a lawyer here in Halifax in a couple of weeks. He's a prominent lawyer who's aware... He has umpteen names.

• 2100

As I told you, it's sad. I don't want to make the military look bad, and everybody in the military isn't bad, but there's something drastically wrong when you've had to go through what we went through.

I've just started my pension from the civil service, and I don't begrudge anything, and my wife and I now have taken on the care of our son, plus our two little grandchildren.

If you think children don't listen and they don't hear, my little six-year-old grandson turned to me in the car one afternoon and said, “Grampy, are you going to tell the story about Daddy's back?” I said, “Do you want me to?” He said, “Somebody has to tell it, Grampy.” Yes, it's emotional, but you're damn right, I'm going to tell it and I'm not going away.

I hope some of you people on this committee and anybody with National Defence can sit down with someone, and for heaven's sake, disengage this stuff. As I said, I don't want to cash in the little bit I have, but if it means fighting for my son, I'm going to do it, and I'll tell you, if anything happens to my boy, you're going to see the biggest suit you've ever seen come out of Nova Scotia, and I kid you not.

If I have to walk to Ottawa, I'll do it, and you can give that to the minister, and to Mr. Baril, because I can't get anybody higher than a major or a lieutenant, and I'm sick and tired of talking to machines and being put off and passed on. I realize and I respect, people at that working level...like Major Muzitis said, he can only do what he can do at his level. I said, “Sir, I appreciate that; thank you, kindly.”

I have to take my son back home. Would you like me to leave a copy of that presentation?

The Chairman: Yes, please.

Corporal Trina Romard.

Corporal Trina Romard (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chairman and honourable committee members. My name is Corporal Trina Romard, and the subject of my concern is the personal experience that involved my husband who is an army CELE officer in training, my two-year-old son, and myself.

In 1997 we were informed that the 862 steward trade would become a hard-sea trade. We knew that it would make postings together very difficult. My first option was to apply for a remuster. Due to a low score in a math test that I had not taken for nine years, I was ineligible and was told to upgrade my math. This made me conclude that my nine-year career and performance meant little.

My second option was for release. This would permit me and my son to be posted to Kingston with my husband for his officer training. This has been the practice in past years, because the training normally takes from 13 to 16 months. I put in my release in January of this year, with an effective date of May 11.

In April my husband received his posting message: Move of DF and E was prohibited in order to save expense to the crown in a restricted posting year. My husband is expected to be in Kingston from May 25, 1998 to October 1999. At that time, we will be moved to Kingston or possibly some other Canadian Forces base.

One of the reasons for not being allowed a move is the absence of the guarantee that my husband's on-the-job training from January to October will be in Kingston. It could possibly be in Petawawa. Kingston is still closer to Petawawa than Halifax.

After investigating the matter, my husband was told nothing could be done. He was advised not to move his family on his own. With the message coming only one month prior to his posting and having no prior knowledge that I would not be allowed to move with him as anticipated, this left us only a month to prepare mentally and financially for the separation.

I have still been released. I had no one to care for our son if I were to sail, as I was a member of HMCS Preserver. I'm led to believe there is one other officer in my husband's situation, who is leaving his family in Newfoundland. Short vacations between training will be more difficult for him than for my husband, who we will see for two weeks in August-September, two weeks at Christmas, and two weeks or more in 1999.

This has left me very sad and critical, as I expected the military to care more about DND families, something that has always been preached to us.

Thank you for your time.

• 2105

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Howard West.

Mr. Howard West (Individual Presentation): Good evening, folks. This evening I'm speaking on behalf of 2,000 civilian employees who are employed by DND in Nova Scotia.

Since 1993, the ranks of the civilian workforce employed by DND have been cut from roughly 25,000 people to 14,000, through base closures and various downsizing initiatives.

The beginning of the next century, with DND proceeding on the path of alternate service delivery the government has forced them to embark on, there will likely be very less than 7,000 employees working directly for DND. That will mean a considerable job loss for the 2,000 people who are presently employed in Nova Scotia.

Many reasons have been given for this employment genocide, and I'll talk about them in more detail in a moment, but most of them are both specious and superficial. They're not really reasons for eliminating a whole segment of the Canadian workforce, but merely excuses.

Civilian employees feel just as betrayed by their leaders as their military brethren do. Civilian employees of DND have been consistently treated as sacrificial scapegoats of the defence department. Whenever there's been a need for cost savings, civilian jobs have always been the fatality.

Regardless of who is responsible for the financial difficulties DND experiences, or how well we do our jobs, the only reaction we consistently get from government and top DND management is that we're too expensive, never good enough, and entirely expendable. Despite years of dedicated service years by an increasingly aging workforce, we're treated as though we're thoroughly replaceable and certainly not worth the average wage of $ 15 an hour that most of us are paid after 10 or 20 years of service.

The government and DND have made it very clear that they do not want to employ us. After years of fighting a war of attrition against one kind of job loss or another, most DND employees would prefer to not work for an employer that is so flagrantly careless in its attitude to its employees. After a decade or two of service supporting established families in a province with an extremely high unemployment rate, we're left with little choice, however.

Despite what Mr. Eggleton has said in the House of Commons about generous packages, an average package of $ 30,000 taxed at 48%—not counting our rightful pension entitlements, which we have paid into at the rate of 8% of our salary a year—does not go very far towards supporting a family in the present economy.

Why is DND experiencing financial difficulties in the first place? The main reason is because the Government of Canada has found it really easy to reduce its funding for years to unsupportable levels. The Government of Canada has chosen to do this because the majority of its support, regardless of which political party has been in power, comes from central Canada. The DND presence is not a very visible nor important one to the electorate of central Canada, with a few obvious exceptions. It's not one of the public services that win or lose elections in that part of the land, and it makes a very easy target.

Now, in order to buy equipment that it really does need, DND has to find the funds out of the existing ones. The department is being blackmailed by the government. The government in the 1995 budget recommended that one of the ways the department can generate funds is by contracting out services.

Although many large and dynamic industries are now rejecting this approach as counterproductive to quality business practices, it's still very much the flavour of the day at the top levels of DND.

Colonel Morton has summarized the reasons given for all of these contracting-out initiatives very nicely in a paper he submitted on February 25 of this year. In his introduction, he writes:

Contractors claim that their management expertise, their economics of scale and their freedom from regulation and bureaucracy would allow them to organize and deliver the equivalent services more cheaply. As well, part-time workers, more subcontractors, and commercially competitive wage and benefit packages would reduce their labour costs.

He's saying two things here. First he says that DND should contract out because military managers can't manage very well. Well, if I were a DND manager I'd be pretty upset at that.

• 2110

Second, he goes on to say that if you hire a contractor who pays people low wages and gives them part-time jobs with few benefits, you could save some money.

Both of these observations are true, I guess, but many middle managers, certainly at the base level, are extremely competent and have been very active in promoting cost-efficient, quality-oriented workplaces. Upper DND management has been extremely hesitant to do its part. Instead, they seem preoccupied with appearing to appease their political masters, ensuring the success of their individual careers and protecting their closed old boys' world from any real public scrutiny.

W. Edwards Deming was one of the pre-eminent figures in quality management. He's the guy responsible for the big upswing in industry after the Second World War in Japan. He believed and worked off the assumption that 85% of the problems a company experiences are due to poor management. This appears to be the case at DND.

Second, I suppose it's true that an average wage of $ 15 an hour costs the government and DND more than a wage of $ 6.50 an hour would. Benefits also cost money. However, the employees who are making that average wage are increasingly expected to be more multifaceted in their abilities, conversant with numerous computer technologies, and in possession of ever more developed written and oral skills.

No employer, contractor or otherwise, is going to be able to employ people with those kinds of skills and the kind of commitment that DND public servants have historically shown in times of emergency for a minimum wage. You get what you pay for, and in this case the ordinary soldier or officer who depends on that support will get very little in the way of support.

Dynamic companies like Federal Express, for instance, pay their employees both in terms of wages and benefits a lot more than DND does. Moreover, the benefits that will not be paid by DND will instead have to be borne by the taxpayer as even more people will be entirely dependent on public health, dental, disability and pension benefits. Families will break up, homes will be lost, and a lot of people will be unable to be full participants in either the economy or society in general.

As Michael MacDonald, chairman of the Greater Halifax Economic Development Partnership, pointed out in last week's newspaper, the whole economy of this area would be undermined.

The contracting-out experience at Goose Bay just bears witness to the shortsighted thinking that gives rise to this kind of approach. The DND employees at Goose Bay lost the chance to remain public servants largely on the basis of lower wages and benefits.

So why are we not keeping workers who by all accounts, certainly those of the majority of their middle managers who manage them, are doing an excellent job and adapting well to the requirements of the modern workplace and laying off some of those managers who are causing probably 85% of the problems if we accept standard business practices? Contracting out may be a strange way of doing this, but if this is the case, why punish the ordinary worker for the sins of his manager with a certain threat of pay reduction or job loss.

The self-same colonel who so eloquently summarized the reasons for contracting out does so in an introduction to a paper entitled “Embedding Military Manpower in ASD Contracts”. This paper was developed to find ways to save military jobs while still contracting out the remainder, i.e., the civilian support workers, and with that an awful lot of military support workers as well.

The conclusion of this paper is that military organizations can be easily embedded with a contractor's organization. However, the report's author is reluctant to forecast any cost savings by doing so. Once again, the cost savings are totally borne out on the back of the job losses.

The government has trumpeted the recent pay raises for the military by saying that this will bring them to the same level of pay as their civilian equivalents. In some cases it's probably so, especially at departmental levels and if the comparisons are being made to people outside the public service. However, for the majority of the working men and women whose jobs are in the support areas of the military and are now being scoped for contracting out, this is most assuredly not the case. In most support areas, the civilian equivalents of the military personnel they work beside make decidedly less money a year. For instance, a civilian supply worker working alongside a military supply worker makes $ 24,000 to $ 27,000 annually while the corporal makes between $ 36,000 and $ 40,000.

The point is that the civilian complement of DND is already the least expensive part of the workforce. Military wages are richly deserved, especially when the members are in the field. There's no doubt of that. However, the civilian workforce would like the government to stop deliberately misleading the public in their announcements about the level of public service wages within the defence department. It's just a lie, and its only effect is to demoralize the workforce and to further increase the cynicism they feel towards the motives of their employer.

• 2115

DND management and workers in most establishments across the country have spent the last few years reorganizing their operations to provide both cost-efficient and quality-assured service to all their customers. Good management practices would suggest that given the combined financial manpower and costs that have gone into this and have been undertaken to achieve these efficiencies, time would be allotted to put them into effect and measure the results.

Would Ford have built their new Saturn plant with its reorganized workflow techniques so that they can pay GM to run it for them? At the present time, DND management is proceeding with the proposal and planning of countless contracting-out proposals in Halifax and across the country that create this exact scenario. The in-house reorganizations for the most part have been initiated by a management-worker partnership, which, although not perfect, has some notion of what their business is about and many of the contracting schemes do not.

For instance, the construction engineering section at base Halifax underwent a consultant's study to see if contracting out would generate cost savings. The consultant was paid a lot of money to come up with a report. For 42 pages, the report argued that contracting out would not generate savings in this case. On page 43, the consultant came to the conclusion that they did not really trust the findings of their own report, so DND might as well go to competition anyway.

So if the reorganized activity had been given a chance to work, and if valid performance measurements had been instituted, this charade would not have been necessary. However, pressure from the top to contract out, at almost any cost, continues to gobble up more resources as once again everyone has to revisit that CE situation.

Another new and improved scheme to get rid of proven low-cost workers at almost any cost is one called the supply chain project. Put simply, this is a plan to contract out as large a chunk of the DND supply and distribution network nationally as possible to any one company large enough to be able to manage the contract. The same functions on most bases have already been reorganized and await only a judicious business performance trial of their cost and quality effectiveness.

Already this master plan, the supply chain project, is running into problems and may even be in conflict with some important international law like the Geneva Convention. The intent initially was to collaborate with private industry to see what they would like to bid on. But the more the collaboration, the more aspects of the operation private industry preferred not to bid on. Naturally they're in the profit-generating business, so they want what will generate easy profits while allowing the taxpayer to assume the burden for those parts of DND operation that will not.

In a briefing in Halifax last month, the favourite answer that project team leaders supplied for serious questions the admiral and the base commander asked was, “We're fuzzy around the edges on that.” The whole plan's fuzzy around the edges, and will continue to be, because it's based on the idea that contracting out must be found to be the preferred option, rather than a thorough business analysis and performance measurement of the business we already do.

The above scheme is ongoing, but last month some enterprising manager in NDHQ decided to run another one. He gathered a lot of old statistics from a computer database and came to the conclusion that the only bases that were actually doing very much work, and doing it efficiently, were the depots in Montreal and Edmonton. Based on their analysis, and without consultation with bases in the rest of the country, they decided that all of what is called centrally managed material should be warehoused only in those two locations.

This comes after two years of decentralizing the same material to the various parts of the country. Management at Halifax quickly realized that the scheme was entirely flawed by incorrect and misleading data, and consequently spent the next week or two gathering the information to demonstrate that this was indeed the case.

I'll tell you, the civilian workforce, and a lot of the military workforce too for that matter, are sick and tired of these half-baked schemes to eliminate our jobs. They're causing long-term stress, they fly in the face of rational business planning, and meanwhile, top management has a secret to cost savings laid out like a road map on the doorstep of every base that's gone through reorganization. Both the civilian and the military workforce have realized they have to work more efficiently and at the same time provide a quality customer service.

The assumption is that private industry automatically can provide services better, even though DND already has experts who have provided an excellent service since the Second World War, and continue to strive to improve that service.

• 2120

Top government and military managers are doing all their employees a grave disservice by making the implied assumption that they are unable to do the job they were trained to do. If there have been inefficiencies, it's because of top management's lack of leadership and vision, not that of their middle managers, and certainly not that of the civilian workers at the bottom of the heap, just trying to keep their jobs by doing a good job.

If the countless resources—much of them hidden from the public—that have gone into this wild effort to contract out at any cost could be utilized to continue improving an already much-improved organization, the whole of DND as well as the Canadian public would be a hell of a lot better served.

The Chairman: Mr. West, is your presentation almost ended?

Mr. Howard West: Two minutes.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Howard West: This just isn't humane. The constant, ongoing stress, year after year, new job-cutting initiative after new job-cutting initiative, will leave a permanent mark. It will reflect on DND's ability to provide the service the public expects it to provide.

The effect on the civilian workforce has been physically devastating and spiritually devastating. The government and top DND management have to stop treating its employees as disposable commodities to be discarded at will. And we've heard a lot of that here tonight, haven't we? More and more hard-working DND employees are getting closer and closer to the breaking point.

No economist, social worker, religious leader, sensible businessman with a product to sell, or thoughtful citizen in this land would argue that trading half-decent paying jobs for minimum-wage jobs is good for anyone. Why do it then? Why not stop it now, recommend a moratorium on this contracting out, and let the efficiencies that have already been realized grow, change if they need to, and bear some fruit? If that is ideologically too untenable a course to follow, at least—at the very least—put into effect the kinds of guarantees of wages and benefits that are in effect in other NATO countries that have contracted out parts of their defence services.

Thanks very much for your time.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Benoit, did you have a question?

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I just have one question.

When you started your presentation, you said you were speaking on behalf of or represented 2,000 civilian employees at DND.

Mr. Howard West: That's correct.

Mr. Leon Benoit: In what capacity?

Mr. Howard West: I'm a representative of the Union of National Defence Employees and I'm a member of the workforce here at CFB Halifax.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Howard West: Thank you.

The Chairman: Ms. Dawn Russell.

Ms. Dawn Russell (Individual Presentation): Good evening.

I'm a member of the primary reserves and I'm here to make just a short oral presentation this evening. I'm a member of the West Nova Scotia Regiment, which is located here in Kentville, Nova Scotia.

The point I want to address first is the Canada Pension Plan. I don't know if this has been brought to your attention before, but a class A reservist does not pay into the Canada Pension Plan, regardless of his or her earnings. The reasoning for this seems to be unclear. I don't think we've ever been given an actual reason, just that we can't pay in. We don't have the option to pay into Canada Pension.

For other employees, Canada Pension deductions would be made for any earnings of $ 145 or over that are paid, as we are paid, in a bimonthly period. A class A reservist at the paid rank of corporal, RPC-2, would earn $ 171 every two weeks, even if he or she only paraded two nights during that period.

The basic exemption for Canada Pension is $ 3,500 a year, and the reservist in this example would probably receive a refund of contributions if he or she only trained for 40 days of the year. However, I would suggest that most reservists in our system train a lot more than 40 days a year—upwards of 60, 80, or even 100 days a year—and still do not have access to the Canada Pension Plan.

In my own case, I've been a member of the reserves since 1976, and I've only paid into Canada Pension during the summers when I have been employed with the reserves on class B employment. I calculated this morning that basically, in the last 10 years, $ 4,400 should have been contributed to my Canada Pension, and instead $ 1,900 has been contributed, which is a difference of 44%. I also calculated that I've received in the last seven years about $ 60,000 from class A earnings, none of which are pensionable.

• 2125

I've not been able to determine my earnings from 1976 to 1989 at this time.

If I were to receive a pension today, if I were to be 65 today and receive a pension, it would be $ 144 a month, as opposed to approximately $ 400 to $ 450 a month. That is what I've been able to determine from speaking to the people at Canada Pension.

Right now, in 1998, every employee in Canada, as far as I can determine, except for a class A reservist, has access to the Canada Pension Plan. This translates into a 6.4% contribution yearly to that pension plan, and I would basically like to know why we reservists, who are issued T-4 slips every year—we're employed—are denied access to what I feel is a basic Canadian right, to the Canada Pension Plan. I don't understand this. I think it's an issue that must be addressed.

I also feel it's an issue that a lot of people are not aware of. When you talk to people about this, most people don't seem to know this. Even the people at Canada Pension who I spoke to this morning and have spoken to in the past say, “You must be mistaken. Every Canadian, every employee, pays into Canada Pension. Once you reach that $ 145 figure every two weeks, you have to; there's no way around it.” When I say “No, we don't”, basically they don't believe me. But this is the truth.

The other issue I want to raise—and I'll only take another moment of your time—is the fact that we reservists have no pension plan. Part of the Get Well program that has been announced recently is what's called a retirement gratuity. My feeling is that it has been disguised as a pension when in actual fact it's really a severance package. Basically, after so many years' service, 10 years or more, you get a week's pay for every year of service.

I'm going to give you a quick example of a pay clerk with my regiment, the West Nova Scotia Regiment. She's a corporal. She enrolled in the reserves in 1981. She has been employed a total of 3,000 days in class B service as of 31 March, which translates into 8.2 years of full-time service. The other 9 years would have been all class A time, and as a pay clerk she normally would have had probably 100 days a year. This would equal, probably, 11 years of full-time service that this individual has put into the reserves.

If she were to be released tomorrow, she would be paid a retirement gratuity or a severance package of $ 10,498. If she were to remain with us for another 19 years, until she's 55 or CRA, she would receive $ 18,000, which invested at 8% a year, would translate into approximately $ 123 a month retirement package for this individual after 36 years in the reserves. In other words, she has no pension. This retirement gratuity is merely a severance pay. It doesn't suffice, in my opinion, as a pension and is no replacement.

We're talking here about a person who, if she remained with us, could have upwards of 20 years of full-time service, yet she's looking at basically $ 123 a month. I would suggest that there are probably hundreds of thousands of cases like this right across the country, individuals who are not allowed to pay into Canada Pension, nor is there any pension for them when they're released.

I was a TAE in the reserves. I'll probably be released in November 1999 at the latest and will be looking at, at that time, probably $ 20,000 after 23 or 24 years of service. My only option at that point would be to cash in my RRSPs—and I do have RRSPs, but they're not that much and are not going to last very long.

Basically, those are the points I wanted to make to you tonight.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Has your regiment experienced problems getting paid? We heard a horror story tonight about a young seaman. Do you know if your regiment has had problems?

Ms. Dawn Russell: We've experienced an awful lot of problems getting paid, first, with the IRPPS system. It replaced the old system that we'd had in place for years, which worked all right. It was slow, but it did work. It required a lot less money being thrown at it than this one did. The IRPPS system has been replaced by the revised pay system for the reserves, the RPSR. That's basically just another IRPPS. It hasn't worked any better.

• 2130

We in the West Nova Scotia Regiment experienced an awful lot of difficulty with the system, but this particular corporal I just referred to is the pay clerk. She's very conscientious and very dedicated. She's there full time, and she monitors every single pay period. It's very difficult to even let her take leave, especially over a pay period.

But we've had a lot of difficulties with the system crashing, and this sort of thing. There's a lot of utilization of the contingency plan, which in itself caused problems later on. So yes, we're well aware of the problems in the pay system, and there's no end in sight.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Ms. Dawn Russell: Thank you.

The Chairman: Allan White.

Mr. Allan White (Individual Presentation): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for the opportunity to present the issue on the submarine specialty allowance, SUBSPA. I realize I have only two minutes to speak on this issue, so I've prepared a more comprehensive brief for your benefit that can be read at a later time.

Let me begin by saying that this issue is one that represents dissatisfaction among the lower ranks of leading seaman and below who are qualified in serving on submarines. To keep it brief, there exist two levels of the allowance. The low-rate allowance is paid to the leading seaman and below. The high-rate allowance is paid to the master seaman and above.

Since the mid-1980s, the requirement to bring higher ranks above that of leading seaman into the submarine service evolved for a number of reasons that will not be presented. The fallout of this was that many of those of the rank of leading seaman and below already serving in submarines were responsible for providing the onboard training for those more senior personnel who were new to the environment. The source of dissatisfaction stems from the fact that many of these lower-paid personnel provide guidance and training to the higher ranks when they arrive on board to progress with their on-the-job training to the submariner qualification.

Once these higher-ranking personnel have acquired the submariner status, they're immediately entitled to collect the higher rate of SUBSPA merely by virtue of their rank. This practice became more predominant as time marched on, due to the development of critical manning requirements and the drastic slowdown in promotions caused by downsizing. The slowdown in promotion also prevented lower-ranked personnel from progressing upward within their trade.

The related CFAOs sporadically evolved through this period. However, they never recognized the ranks receiving the lower rate. Indeed, it often appeared that the regulating documentation was amended to sort out what positions ashore would receive SUBSPA. Caps of 75 annotated shore positions are established and represent positions entitled to collect SUBSPA. This is a ceiling that was placed across the Canadian Forces.

The 75-position cap does not reflect the supporting establishment required today. As a result, more junior personnel did not receive SUBSPA, while others in positions of what seemed to be of a lesser legitimacy did receive SUBSPA.

There is even one case where a member not in receipt of SUBSPA was transported to the west coast from Halifax to serve onboard a submarine to overcome a critical manning deficiency. The ironic part of this issue was that he was serving in the unit, the submarine training section of the Canadian Forces Naval Operations School, where everyone else was receiving SUBSPA.

Concurrently, more senior ranking personnel serving in NDHQ, who by virtue of their rank would never see service in submarines again, were collecting SUBSPA. It is acknowledged that they are performing submarine tasks. Nevertheless, I believes this violates the spirit of the regulation that is interpreted to read and is widely recognized within the community as compensation for those members serving in submarines or likely to return to service in submarines.

To make this whole issue more convoluted, a message was released as an advance amendment to a CFAO that ceased the entitlement for personnel on career coursing to collect SUBSPA. These personnel have historically always returned to service on submarines upon completion of their trades training. However, the CFAO was never officially changed to reflect this message, and the result creates further confusion among those attending career coursing.

This message amendment also contradicts the governing QR and O. This message needs to be officially rescinded to eliminate the confusion it creates.

In 1996, it was finally identified that those of the rank of leading seaman and below were required to be recognized for their abilities and that there was a much-needed and overdue change to the SUBSPA rates. This recognition was supported by three naval captains and three separate pieces of official correspondence.

• 2135

Despite the strong support received on this issue by the three naval captains, no progress appears to be evident. This issue remains outstanding. All requests to the divisional chain of command seeking a response to this issue have received the same answer. The matter resides with NDHQ.

Only one piece of e-mail has been received in response to this issue, despite the support it has received. It outlined a list of excuses as to why the process was taking so long.

Several options are included in the briefing package to provide some guidance on the resolution of this issue. Notwithstanding this, I provide my own personal comments.

Ladies and gentlemen, it pains me to see the royal submariners of lower rank whom I have served beside for so many years in an operational submarine receiving much less in financial compensation. Yet they are equally deserving of a high rate. In many cases, some of these lower ranks have endured the hardships of submarine service longer than that experienced by the senior NCMs and officers they serve. It pains me even more that until recently, some officers directed their resources and influence toward providing others with perhaps lesser legitimacy with the higher rate of compensation. Our lower ranks deserve better.

I currently occupy one of the annotated billets ashore in a submarine support role, and as a result I draw SUBSPA. If the only solution in these times of financial restraint is the elimination of the annotated positions ashore to offset the cost associated with paying the higher rate to all those serving in submarines, then I would be the first to sacrifice my own entitlement if it meant that those neglected members currently serving would be elevated to the financial compensation they clearly deserve.

I believe in service to my country and my shipmates, something I have believed in and practised since I was 17 years old. Should I have to give up something that I have earned in an effort to compensate those of the rank of leading seaman below who also deserve it? The answer is no, enough sacrifice has been made, so I should not have to do so. However, I am willing to do so if the government does not possess the will to recognize that which has been loyally earned.

This concludes my presentation on SUBSPA. Whatever action is to be taken on this issue, it should be done quickly and decisively. This issue has gone unresolved for far too long.

I thank you for your time. If there are no questions, I'll submit my report.

The Chairman: There are questions, Mr. White.

Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: The specialty pay allowance presently is being delivered to members who are not serving in that capacity in submarines.

Mr. Allan White: Yes, sir. What I was alluding to is that there are 75 positions ashore that are annotated to receive SUBSPA.

Mr. Art Hanger: Why?

Mr. Allan White: That is because those people are more than likely going to return to service in submarines, and it was provided as an incentive because of the hazardous—

The Chairman: It's a stay.

Mr. Allan White: It's a stay. The problem that exists is that we had two men of the rank of master seaman who had both sailed on submarines on short notice to overcome many deficiencies who were not in receipt of SUBSPA. Meanwhile, I believe there's a total of five officers sitting in NDHQ who will never go back to a submarine but who are receiving SUBSPA.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. As for this inequity, where is this all drafted? Is it drafted in Ottawa.

Mr. Allan White: It's controlled by an office in Ottawa that really doesn't control it. They do what they're told.

For example, to overcome the deficiency with these two of the rank of master seaman, I was directed by Captain Webster of my unit to sit down and review the positions available within our own unit. If there were any empty positions, we could transfer that allowance up to the school so those two members could collect it. They filled that billet for over two years—they were not in receipt of SUBSPA—and when they finally did get it, it was only retroactive back to January of this year.

Mr. Art Hanger: It sounds like an inequity here. Who gives Ottawa direction to formulate things in this fashion?

Mr. Allan White: That's a good question, sir. We've tried from the submarine community itself over several years to rectify this problem, but because it's Queen's Regulations and Orders and CFAO, we cannot control that. All we can do is provide guidance.

Mr. Art Hanger: Thank you.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit.

• 2140

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question.

Do you know how many officers in DND who will never go back to sea are collecting?

Mr. Allan White: Who will never go back to sea in a submarine? Off the top of my head, there are probably about a dozen.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A dozen. Okay, thank you.

The Chairman: Did you say you had a copy for us?

Mr. Allan White: Yes, I do. Unfortunately, I didn't have the foresight to make enough copies for everybody.

The Chairman: One copy is fine.

Mr. Allan White: All the supporting references and letters and documentation are with it.

The Chairman: You can leave it with Michel. Thank you very much, Mr. White.

Mr. Allan White: Thank you.

The Chairman: We still have quite a few witnesses. I would ask that as much as possible, you keep it close to five minutes.

Ms. Wanda MacQueen.

Ms. Wanda MacQueen (Individual Presentation): Mr. Chairman, honourable members of the committee, I'm here tonight to discuss a situation that happened to me in 1991. I have a lot of questions that have not been answered. It's been put forward to many members of Parliament, as Wendy Lill herself is aware.

In 1991 my marriage broke down. I was on a foreign exchange posting with my ex. At the time, two senior military officers came to the house that we were living in. They told me that they were aware of my sister having an illness, as they had been discussing the situation with my ex that morning at the local pub. They sent me and my two children home for compassionate reasons.

While I was at this meeting in the house with these two officers, they informed me that the only personal belongings I could bring back to Canada with me were what I could pack in two suitcases. Thus the car I took to England with me I was not allowed to bring back. I have all the documentation, and Ms. Lill has it as well—a Canadian CFAO-2016 that states it is my vehicle.

As well, at this meeting these two officers were more concerned about who knew about the situation of the marriage breakdown. They were not at all concerned about my two children or myself. It had something to do with his security clearance, whatever that was at the time.

I came back to Canada. I got in touch with a padre at Stadacona. He, unfortunately, was going on sabbatical. He gave me the name of another padre. I talked to that padre, and he in turn told me that if my husband had worked for Sears, Roebuck there was nothing he could do for me; thus he couldn't do anything.

The first padre I initially talked to I tried to get in touch with in November 1991, as I finally had my furniture and effects in the house that I had purchased. He declined ever knowing me or ever talking to me. When I talked to the secretary of the office, I asked her, after the fourth try to get in touch with him, “Why is it that I know that he was an ex-DJ, his wife is from the Kingston peninsula, etc.?” I was not given any answers to that.

Finally I got my furniture and effects claim settled two years after the fact, and that was only because of Kim Campbell doing it for me.

Also in 1991 there were two strikes. The civil servants and the post office went on strike. I had gone to court and had got a provincial Nova Scotia garnishment against my ex's wages for support and maintenance for my two children. In September, before he returned back to Canada, I hand-delivered it to Stadacona. They looked at it, they hemmed and hawed, and that was the end of it.

Finally, at the end of the strikes in October, they were mailed a copy from the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. They denied ever receiving a copy. I found out later that it is a fairly common practice with people in the pay office, be it Stadacona or any other base across Canada, that if your husband knows someone, those documents can be filed underneath a whole slew of papers.

It miraculously showed up on November 19, 1991, after he had put his release in and was released. Thus the papers had to go to Ottawa, and Ottawa had to okay everything. I finally got my first support and maintenance payment for my two children on December 24, 1991.

While he was here, before he finally got his release, he was allowed to stay in the ward room at Stadacona under an assumed name. That I found extremely upsetting.

At the same time, I had phoned Human Rights to find out what my rights were as a civilian. While I was talking to both provincial and federal members of the human rights boards, they told me that as a military spouse I did not come under the Canadian Constitution; I came under military law. Thus, I was compared to boat people who had landed in Nova Scotia in the 1980s. They had more rights than I did because I was a military spouse.

• 2145

Due to the time restraints, only a few incidents have been mentioned. I have not mentioned the attitudes of the DND personnel at CFB Gagetown upon my return to Canada, nor some of the comments from the people at Stadacona. I feel you are going to have a monumental task in changing the attitudes of DND people, especially where it comes to spouses and families, because in July 1991, when I went to Stadacona, there was a chief there who, I'd say, within a period of one hour told me several times that if the military had wanted my spouse to have a family they would have issued him one with his kit.

I have heard that so many times over the years and I thought, no, that's not true—but it is true. That's how they feel, and I think it's going to take a lot of hard-core work on everyone's part to have the mentality level of the military changed so that there is some sort of a support staff out there for the spouses and families.

When there's a marriage breakdown—and even when there isn't a marriage breakdown—the members, the people in the military, seem to sort of go around him, protect him. They'll do anything, to the point of even lying, letting him use an assumed name, living in the wardroom.

I was going to end it at this, but Patricia Tremblay mentioned that when her father died her husband wasn't allowed to attend his funeral.

When my son was born in Victoria, he was born in the intensive care unit, and I phoned the padre up to let the padre know that my son was IC. The padre told me as an officer's wife I wasn't allowed to ask to have my husband brought home, and if my son didn't make it in the first 12 hours, then they would ship him home. So, in other words, before my husband could be sent home after my son was born, the child was going to have to die.

So you guys have a lot of work to do.

The Chairman: Are you receiving child support payments now?

Ms. Wanda MacQueen: Yes. I had to garnishee everything. That is the only way I could get it. Other than that, I wouldn't have received anything, basically, from trial and error, beating my head against a brick wall, phoning everyone and anyone I knew, going to my members of Parliament, even though they were basically brick walls. I talked to Mary Clancy, Mary Collins, Bob Corbett in New Brunswick, every minister of defence, right up until present day. In fact, Wendy Lill's office sent a letter in February on my behalf. As of yet, I'm still waiting for a reply from his office. I don't anticipate anything, because so far, the ministers of defence have never answered any notes, memos or anything pertaining to me. So it's a waiting game on my part.

But I tell you one thing. Something has to be done about the military's attitude.

The Chairman: Ms. Lill.

Ms. Wendy Lill: This is a point of order made to the chair, and as I hear more and more stories, I think, what is the role? Are each of the people who are coming before this committee having some work done on their behalf at the ministerial level? Surely there is some kind of review being done of each one of these persons' cases.

I'm a new standing member here. My question is really to us here. Are we going to be doing that kind of review on each one of these?

The Chairman: Ms. Lill, the mandate of the committee is to come to these town hall meetings and to gather information for our report. We will be making recommendations on the report, and it will be sent to the House of Commons. We then will be sending it to the minister.

Ms. Wendy Lill: So we're not in fact going to be giving any kind of consideration on behalf of each one of these people who are coming before us?

Ms. Wanda MacQueen: No?

The Chairman: No. There were a lot of interesting suggestions and comments that were brought forward by Ms. MacQueen that we'll be having a look at.

• 2150

Ms. Wanda MacQueen: It's just that it's been going on since 1991 and I've not received any answers from anyone.

The Chairman: Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chairman, I think you've covered the issue. I would only say that oftentimes, where people have raised particularly difficult cases, we do get updates from the Department of Defence staff, but obviously not in your case. When people stood up at the microphone in some of the other places we've been to, we got updates based on the information they provided in terms of where the case is at.

I think it's important to point out as well that some of these cases are under appeal, some of them are being looked at by the minister, and in some cases, I suppose, as was mentioned here tonight, there may be legal action pending.

Ms. Wanda MacQueen: When Ron MacDonald was my MP, I was talking to his office manager and he informed me that he would have an answer for me in two days. I'm still waiting. It's two years.

The way I've been treated it's like the military and the government go hand in hand. I've come to the conclusion—and it's not just my conclusion; it's the conclusion of a lot of people I know—that we're dealing with a fascist organization. They have their own laws, their own rules, and their own regulations. If you don't abide by them, they'll come down on you with an iron-clad hand.

I'm surprised at how many people tonight have gotten up here and have spoken out against the military. One of my main concerns—and I addressed it to Ms. Lill—was if I come and speak before the people, because it's the Fleet Club, am I under military law or am I under civilian law? That was my concern, because this is the Fleet Club; this is military property, technically speaking, and if you speak out against the military you can be reprimanded. I'm not worrying. I'm a civilian.

Mr. David Pratt: You're in front of a parliamentary committee, though, and it's our responsibility, as Mr. Bertrand has mentioned, to investigate this issue. What we're looking at is systemic problems within the military.

I think it's also worth mentioning that having spoken to a number of DND employees, they are keeping a list of the issues that have been raised, and we're probably in the vicinity of about 500 different items that have been raised in connection with problems with the military. One of them has certainly been care of the injured, care of people who have been wounded or hurt in the line of duty.

The issue you've raised about the insensitivities has been raised before.

Ms. Wanda MacQueen: Nine times out of ten, if a woman is going to marry someone in the military, she's going to go on a posting with him. She goes to a strange town. She knows absolutely no one there. Hubby has all of his buddies. He has his job to go to. The wife sits home with two kids, nine times out ten. Eventually, she'll be able to get a job, if she's lucky, but not too many people on civilian street want to hire a military wife, because two years down the road she's gone again.

I was in a foreign country, and basically the only people I had to fall back on were an American family, the British padre, and a British doctor who was stationed at the base. All the Canadians turned their backs on me and my two children—and I was one of the lucky ones. I had family in Canada who could take us in. When I came back to Canada I had two suitcases, two kids, and that was it. I had to go to court to get my furniture released. Then I had to go back to England and pack up the house, with all the personal belongings of my children and myself. DND didn't worry about whether my children, at the age of 13 and 15, had anyone to look after them. I could not leave them by themselves. I had family I could fall back on.

They tried to cut back on expenses for my husband by saying that I was going home under compassionate reasons because of my sister's illness. I'm sorry to say my sister didn't pass away until last year. Usually you don't get a compassionate posting back home for a short period of time or a long period of time unless that person's ready to die. But that was one way to save the cost for my ex-husband. It's the old boys' school out there, and if you don't play ball with them, forget it; you're out in left field someplace.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ms. Wanda MacQueen: Thank you.

The Chairman: Larry Pennell.

• 2155

Mr. Larry Pennell (Individual Presentation): Good evening, members of the committee. I had a chance to talk to some of you today down at the south squadron. Being here tonight and listening to some of the cases, it's definitely an eye opener to me. Some of them I can't believe.

Today, the issues I'll be talking about are on behalf of my boatmates of the HMCS Okanagan, and I feel it is my duty to come here and say it as well.

The quality of life issue I would like to mention on behalf of the members of HMCS Okanagan is that due to cutbacks in both resources and the financial restraints in DND, the workload for submariners is greater. Besides spending a great deal of time at sea, in excess of 200 days at sea away from our families, when we come back home again, a great majority of guys are working until 8, 9, 10, 11 o'clock at night all week and then having to come in on weekends, taking their leave, and having to come in off leave to get the job done. A lot of times that is to carry your maintenance out, but the bottom line is to get the submarine operational to go to sea, at the members' expense and especially the families'.

In saying that, the sea-shore ratio for a sailor ideally is supposed to be a 60/40 split: 60 at sea, 40 ashore. Today, this is simply not the case. Due to the lack of promotions, guys can't go ashore, because most of the shore billets are usually for master seaman and above. The problem we are experiencing right now in the navy at the leading seaman level is that it's fairly likely that these guys are going to be twenty years at that present rank. This means that at this present rank there is no advancement, there are no raises, there are no more incentives. Therefore, no rank, no shore postings.

Along with no rank, as I said, there are no pay increase. Therefore, incentives to excel in your job become effortless. It's not only in submarines, but it's also on the ships as well.

As you saw when you went down there today, there are 72 people who live onboard the boat, and there are only a certain number of us down there who have to pull our weight above and beyond. It's good sometimes to get a pat on the back for the effort, but it just seems to be continuing, and too many pats on the back become a pain in the back.

When I got married, I bought my wife a little teddy bear and it says, “The hardest job in the navy is a navy wife”. It's true. It's bad enough that we're off on deployments, which is understandable—I joined the navy to go to sea and I intend to do that—but when I'm home I would expect, and my boatmates and other shipmates would expect, to spend some quality time with your family and watch your kids grow up and what not. That's a big concern down at the squadron, and we're hoping with the Upholders that we're going to get this practice we're now doing on Oberons is not going to continue on. It's a grave issue. I can talk to my civvy friends and they can't put up with spending seven months away from their families, and then working at home until 8, 9 or 10 o'clock at night and taking leave when it's inconvenient to them and their families.

It's just not kosher. It becomes a snowball effect; it's just a vicious circle. The recommendation for the committee from the guys is to really come down on NDHQ. As everybody else here this evening said, that seems to be the problem area. There are a lot of people who are bending over backwards to get the job done, but at the end of the day the last say is up on the Hill. Sometimes it's not in cahoots with what we think, but sometimes you have to bite the bullet and get on with it. It seems that nowadays it's getting into a trend like cutbacks, and there's not the support there so the onus is on us. We don't get paid overtime; you can work 24 hours a day, seven days a week, but you'll still get the same pay.

• 2200

That was my reason for coming here tonight. I thank you very much.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Elizabeth Hurley.

Ms. Elizabeth Hurley (Individual presentation): Thank you. My name is Elizabeth Hurley. My husband and I were part of the injured personnel review team and the report put out by Lieutenant Colonel McLellan.

My husband was one of the peacekeepers who was injured in Bosnia. Unfortunately, right now he has a redress of grievance outstanding at the base. I understand it's at the admiral's office. It's based entirely on the lack of timely and consistent medical care, which he unfortunately did not receive when he returned. As of June 1, he'll be medically released.

In the interests of fairness, something which has not been shown to either one of us, I'll only touch briefly on the issues within the redress.

Several of our friends and colleagues—some you've met tonight, some you've met across the country—have asked me to address some of the issues that are affecting the medically released peacekeepers. It would be unfair of me to address all the issues you've heard tonight, all of which we, as a couple and as a family, have suffered through. I'll try to just keep it down to these.

When I spoke with Major Robertson back in October, he asked that when I appear before you people I try to come up with anecdotes, if possible; solutions rather than just rants.

The first suggestion we have is the creation of injured peacekeeping units. This is an idea that actually comes from Rick McLellan. I've borrowed it. We would set up something possibly at the national level and then possibly within districts. I don't think there's any need financially to start to go out onto bases, but a place where Veterans Affairs, SISIP, CPP, and DND have one main office where when a call comes in from an injured peacekeeper, a claim is initiated on three sides: DND, Veterans Affairs, and SISIP.

Everybody has their own version of disabled, none of which work for anybody who's injured. As you've heard tonight, there are just too many horror stories. We're about to become yet another statistic. We have been a horror story down here. By the time my husband's redress of grievance is resolved, he'll probably be released anyway.

With the creation of the injured peacekeeping unit, a lot of the paperwork to start claims for SISIP and Veterans Affairs could be initiated right then and there.

We were informed on August 1, 1997, in the letter they generously sent out to us, that when my husband initiated his SISIP claim it would take six to nine months. On April 1 this year they informed him that after nine months all the medical data were out of date and he needed to resubmit everything.

Our second suggestion is medical facilities. Right now you're sending support trades out on peacekeeping duties, returning them back to units, which are perhaps their home unit, and there are not medical facilities for their injuries when they return. We speak very truthfully on that matter.

My husband was sent from St. Hubert. While being medivacked out, he was informed he was posted to Halifax. They said, “After all, you're from Newfoundland; you'll enjoy Halifax.” There was no offer of another posting, no offer of “We'll delay it a year; we'll get you healthy.”

They sent us down here, and unfortunately my husband is a support trade, so, on top of that, he wears a green uniform. Wearing a green uniform on a naval base is probably the utmost of garbage. Again, we speak from personal comments, comments made at the chiefs' level: “It's an army problem.”

• 2205

This is a constant, reiterating theme throughout the peacekeepers who are returning. If you don't have the medical facilities to support their recovery, please don't return them to units that can't help them.

Access to medical documents: You've heard one fellow's talk tonight. He can't proceed any further because he can't get his medical documents. They openly tell you it's going to take at least eight months to gain your medical docs.

My question to National Defence is, if you are medically releasing this individual, why not give them their medical documents as part of their release package? It's not that difficult a thing. Get a photocopier, get a clerk. For that matter, give it to the injured personnel. They or their wife will do it themselves.

Our fourth suggestion is probably the one that everybody's going to balk at, because there's no money, so it's a pie-in-the-sky request, but it's for a release package similar to the FRP package or to the retirement fund.

You ask the peacekeeper to give of their life, to give of their health. They go over; they do this. You've seen some of the consequences tonight.

My husband has post-traumatic stress disorder bad enough that Veterans Affairs did not question his claim. They not only didn't question it, but they were probably the only people in the whole Halifax area.... They've worked very hard to make sure that we've been taken care of with this special duty area pension.

Unfortunately, the military was not quite so generous in response to his medical conditions. We are now faced with the fact that his severance is going to take five to seven weeks to be given to him. He finishes on June 1. That means the first time he will get his severance package, if they do all their pay work properly, would be mid-July.

There are no advances. You're not entitled to them. Ottawa says that now. You don't get a chance to get any of your money that you're owed in advance.

My husband then said to them, “I understand my 18-year pension is going to be kicking in.” They said, “Oh yes, this is how much you're going to be paid.” After he pays for our health benefits, his SISIP, his coverage after release, he will take home $ 851 a month.

My husband asked how long that would take. “Oh, that'll take at least five to six weeks to kick in.” My husband said, “It used to be that you got a month to two months in advance.” “Oh no, you get nothing.” My husband said to the PO in the release centre, “Exactly how am I supposed to live until all of these funds come in?” The response was the same as we seem to get overall—a blank stare.

I don't know about the rest of you, but $ 851 is not a whole lot of money to be living on. His CPP application has been denied, based on the military doctors writing in that once he's removed from the military environment he will be able to find a position within the real world.

Thus, a release package would be perhaps something. Again, it's a pie-in-the-sky thought. I realize that in a time of cutbacks there isn't a lot of money, but at least it would start the ball rolling, at least for some people who aren't going to be able to get a job after the injuries they've sustained. You've seen a few of them here tonight.

We have phone bills, e-mail records, faxes—because we have an organization designed to support injured peacekeepers—that could show you there are a lot of problems out there, and a lot of people who are bankrupt. There's no orderly payment of debts when you have a pension, because they don't garnishee pensions, but it's very, very unfortunate, and a release package would at least start it.

The final thing, which is going to sound pretty petty, is important, however. We have two teenage sons. As you heard tonight, people have children. We'd like the dental benefits that are offered to the public service and to the military members to be offered to the medically released peacekeepers at the same cost as what civil servants pay, It's a very small thing; it's very petty. But we have a child with braces right now. I'd really like to get 80% of that money back, rather than have to put all of it out, and I'm not going to forego his future teeth in order to go without.

• 2210

There are a few other issues I would like to touch on. I'd like to thank you for trying to do this. I expect nothing to come out of this. None of us do. We have been badly treated overall as members, as spouses, and as individuals; therefore, we expect nothing and have received nothing overall. But I do thank you for trying and for at least maybe making a few other people aware of some of the really bad things that are going on.

I also ask you to think long and as hard as possible about the fact that there are a lot of future peacekeepers and a lot of future DND members out there. As the gentleman said earlier, if we don't start taking care of it now, we're going to have a lot more injured and a lot more dead.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hurley.

Mr. Hanger has a question.

Mr. Art Hanger: We've heard a lot of complaints about the medical process and the Department of Veterans Affairs, the whole aspect of dealing with the pensions, of getting medical records. It's not an isolated one or two cases here; it seems to be a more common practice of the handling of disabilities, illnesses, sickness, which have all been attributed to the job or being put into an environment where you end up injured or sick.

You made some suggestions. Personally, I don't see anything out of the ordinary about those suggestions.

I worked on the police department for 22 years. When I put my papers in, finalizing everything, before I walked out the door I knew exactly what the situation was going to be. Sure, I had to wait for some period of time on the pension side because I was far from close to the pension, but my health care and everything else was in order. A person with helpers in the office was assigned to look after all those details. I didn't have to run around and fend for myself. It was done, and there were personnel looking after the issue. It wasn't something where you had to flail around.

But I've seen family members like yourself where, if their husbands were injured, they had to go and do it. I don't think that's acceptable.

Ms. Elizabeth Hurley: On this base I have been particularly fortunate. Very early in our posting here I worked a temporary position within the AJAG. I was able to find out all the rules and regulations and how to work them and I knew who to call there. I was very fortunate. If it hadn't been for that and knowing I could go back and say, oh no, you can't say that—I got my power of attorney.

The other thing was we kept catching the medical people in blatant lies.

Mr. Art Hanger: What do they have to lie about? Do they want to hide their records so they don't have to pay out, or what?

Ms. Elizabeth Hurley: My husband will speak to you on a few of the issues, but at this point the medical records on my husband's file.... He was sent to two separate military specialists; one, because he suffered what was considered a heart attack while in theatre, but after two days he felt better, so he was fine. When he came here he asked to be seen by a cardiac specialist. He was subsequently seen by an internist. I'm from a small town; I'm from Toronto. When you go to see a cardiologist, it doesn't usually say internist on their plaque. Again, I'm from a small town, so I don't understand a lot of the things they do here. This internist made the decision that my husband was doing very well upon his return from Somalia.

• 2215

Somewhere down the line he was sent to a military psychiatrist, who decided he should be shuffled off to see a military psychologist. This is a year and a half after the decision for post-traumatic stress disorder had been made. In his report, this military psychiatrist states that upon my husband's return from Somalia, he was doing very well while having been operated on for his vasectomy while in theatre.

Today, my husband turned in all of his military kit. They wanted to know where were the 12 pairs of knee-high beige socks they issued him when he went to Rwanda.

I would like to state for the record here, first of all, and we can prove all of this because we have the documents—it's part of my husband's redress—but more to the point, he has never been to Somalia, has never had a vasectomy, and he sure as hell was not in Rwanda. But as we explained to General Dallaire, who thinks this is just too funny, we'd like to see the medals; we'd like to see the certificate saying, thanks a lot for going there. He got a really nice one when he went to Bosnia.

The record-keeping is abysmal. We started off this process of the leave time understanding that he had 89 days accumulated leave from when he was with the airborne in the armour corps. He found out today he has 11 days. I'd like to know what happened to the other 78, because now instead of looking at not having money coming in until August, we have it coming in until the first of June.

Those are the records at the administration level and those are the records in the medical system. These are the same people who made the decision to medically release him. If you don't know where he was or what he did, how can you make a decision on his life and then delay it for three years?

He has never seen a cardiologist. He has partial feeling in his right hand. He has requested assistance over and over, but you get to a point where you're not going to ask any more because now you're scared. Once you find out that they think you had a vasectomy in Somalia, you don't know what the hell they think. We're terrified that maybe he had a flashback and ended up in Somalia and had a vasectomy and they haven't told us.

Anyway, I thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Hurley.

Mr. Michael Hurley (Individual Presentation): I'm her better half.

Thank you for appearing, SCONDVA. Chairman Robert Bertrand, merci beaucoup.

I'm an injured peacekeeper, and I came forward because of the simple fact that I was having problems. I feel that I suffered personal oppression, injustice, and ill treatment due to the lack of timely and consistent medical care from the Canadian Forces here in Halifax upon my return from Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina, where I suffered a mortar explosion, and dealing with the atrocities there, bodies included. While in theatre, I sustained injuries that have subsequently caused me to be reviewed by a career review board, medical.

Within six weeks of my returning from the former Yugoslavia, I realized I was not reintegrating into the Canadian Armed Forces lifestyle. I was seen by the formation general physician at formation Halifax, and a referral to see a formation psychiatrist was made. At that time, a diagnosis of acute stress reaction was made, and the psychiatrist felt that within time I would be better and overcome the issues that were evident.

By March 1996, I was no longer able to cope with memories of my tour of Yugoslavia, and again, after meeting with the formation general physician, I was referred to the formation psychiatrist. At that meeting with the formation psychiatrist, a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder was made. Additionally, a decision to place me on Paxil an antidepressant, and sleeping pills, was made by the formation psychiatrist, who also asked me to see the formation social worker to begin work on issues of post-traumatic stress disorder within my family. At this meeting, the formation psychiatrist requested I return in approximately one month for further therapy. I'm still waiting to hear from the social worker. This was three years ago.

• 2220

I returned in April and began more intense therapy with the formation psychiatrist, which continued until June 1996. At the same time, April 1996, I was placed on a temporary category for six months by the formation general physician at the request of the formation psychiatrist in order to facilitate uninterrupted psychotherapy to help me along. At the psychotherapy session of June 19, 1996, I approached the formation psychiatrist about the possibility of forming a post-traumatic stress disorder discussion group. The formation psychiatrist suggested that instead, the formation social worker act as a group leader and that I participate.

In July of 1996 the formation psychiatrist informed me that he was moving to Ottawa and a referral to another formation psychiatrist would be made for me to continue psychotherapy. Unfortunately, the referral to continue with psychotherapy with another formation psychiatrist was waylaid—and that's documented—and a delay of almost two months occurred. At this appointment, the formation psychiatrist informed me that he was unable to continue psychotherapy with me but that I would be referred to a formation psychologist for treatment. Additionally, at my request, the formation psychiatrist stated that he would look into social work referral again to the previous formation psychiatrist. The formation psychiatrist also stated that I was to return in two weeks for referral appointments.

On September 30, 1996, with the formation psychiatrist, I expressed an interest in forming a discussion group for myself and other members suffering from PTSD. He stated that he was unable to assist me in forming such a group. He was too busy with patients, but he felt the formation social worker should be able to assist me. I left my appointment with the formation psychiatrist and met with the formation social worker with the hope of receiving some assistance. I was informed by the formation social worker that she had no mandate to provide such a group and thus was unable to provide any assistance.

I returned to my unit and discussed this with my commanding officer. After this discussion, my commanding officer wrote a memo to the formation hospital surgical officer, requesting both closely monitored medical care on my behalf and the information of a support group. Subsequent to this memo, a post-UN discussion group was set up and monitored by the formation social worker.

A service paper on recommendations, duties, and responsibilities of maritime commands and units in support of military personnel serving on United Nations peace support assignments was produced by the group and submitted to the formation hospital surgical officer. I'm still waiting, after five calls, to find out what is the status of this report. I think I have a right to know. You gave me time to put the time into the group to discuss what's going on, and I don't have the dignity or the time given back to me to say “Where the hell is that report?” I did it to go up the chain, not to get lost.

At the November 5, 1996 appointment with the formation psychologist, he informed me that the National Defence Medical Centre has an assessment clinic for PTSD patients and a two-week course for patients. The formation psychologist felt an assessment by NDMC and possibly getting me on the course would benefit me and help my treatment.

On February 10, 1997 the temporary medical category they imposed on me was lifted. On February 28, 1997 I saw the formation psychologist and a decision to start intense psychotherapy with me was made, but the formation psychologist informed me that because he was only hired on a three-month contract, he felt he could not start therapy. He stated that he was not happy about not being able to assist me, and he realized that this was yet another delay, but he was not able to do anything to help me.

By May, without any psychotherapy, I became overwhelmed by PTSD. After consulting with the formation psychologist, I was referred to a civilian psychologist because I was carrying my Veterans Affairs card. I was also removed from my work environment and again medically categorized.

• 2225

In September 1997 I was referred to a civilian psychiatrist for assessment by Veterans Affairs, from whom I was receiving a special duty pension. The civilian psychiatrist stated to me that with more consistent and intense therapy and psychotherapy I should be able to make a good recovery.

In October 1997 the formation hospital general physician decided I should be considered for a medical release.

On March 10, 1998 I was informed by my chief petty officer that my section had received a message on February 2, 1990 offering me an indefinite period of service. Unfortunately, due to the current status of my file and career review board medical, it would appear that I will not be eligible for this. Four months prior to that I applied to the UTPNCM to become an officer. DCBA in Ottawa refused to give me a year extension so I could go to university and become an officer. Yet they released me. Then they had the audacity to turn around and give me an indefinite period of service contract and then take it back.

I'm very concerned about the treatment, or lack of the same, that I have received from the formation Halifax hospital. I'm certainly not filled with confidence with its ability to manage medical needs or documentation. As just another example of why, there are indications on my medical file that I have been to Somalia and that I had a vasectomy. Neither of these statements is true. If this is how sensitive medical information is communicated and decisions are made on medical needs and people's careers, I feel strongly that I have been mistreated.

In summary, I feel that I have suffered personal oppression, injustice, and ill-treatment due to the lack of timely and inconsistent care that I asked for when I asked for it. Had I received more consistent and intense intervention at an earlier stage of my difficulties, I would not be in the situation I'm in today, and that's retiring with two beautiful boys and a beautiful wife, hoping my RRSPs will get me through to when I get my severance cheque and my pension. He said, “Well, you'd better budget”, so I guess I'd better budget.

It would appear that the concerns expressed by my CO, which have come to fruition.... In order for me to get a UN discussion group started here I had to fight the system to get my CO to write a letter—that's at the commander level—to sue the hospital. The hospital and the social work people are fighting over...“Oh, we don't have a mandate. I can't do it.” The hospital is saying “I can't do it.” The social worker is saying “I can't do it.” I'm saying, get off your ass and make a decision. I can do it.

If given two-week PTSD courses—this is what I'm asking for. If given the course at the National Defence Medical Centre, with proper follow-up of a 12-month period, I feel confident I could return to my trade in the Canadian Armed Forces, which is with intelligence.

I did very well in Sarajevo, briefing the generals, briefing three nationalities in French, English, Serbo Croatian, and briefing Mr. Menzies of the United States embassy. I come home and I get treated like this.

I feel confident that I will be able to return to my trade and carry on with a really good productive career, but as many people I know, who I spoke of who have been injured, said to me, “I told you, Mike; they will release you.”

This is the documentation I have written. I have everything here—medical files, copies for you to read. The report from the UN discussion group that I asked questions on is in here. Also, General Dallaire sent me a copy of the injured personnel review team of what I've had happen to me since I've been home. If you wish to have a copy of that, I can drop it off tomorrow.

I want to thank you for your time. Please excuse my condition right now, but it's been very difficult.

The Chairman: Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Jocelyn Naud.

Mr. Jocelyn Naud (Individual Presentation): Good evening, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee. I could speak in French, but I think it would be rude to people behind me who don't understand French. So forgive my accent.

My name is Jocelyn Naud, master seaman onboard the HMCS Athabascan, marine engineer technician. I sympathize with many of the points that have been brought up so far. You've heard quite a lot; I've heard quite a lot. I sympathize. That's all I can do.

• 2230

We've heard many points, like substandard housing.

We've heard of problems with pay; the guys at the pay office cannot pay us. It's strange that it's the only trade in the Canadian Armed Forces that is not responsible for its mistakes. It's true. I've worked on engines that are worth $ 1 million. If by mistake I blow it up, I can be sure they're going to blow me up too and throw me out the door. But the guys at the pay office make a $ 2,000 mistake.... “Over the last six months I gave you $ 2,000 too much, so I want it this pay.” I've heard it, I've seen it, and I sympathize with people.

I've heard people tonight opening their hearts, telling you “I did this for my family. I wrote a cheque that I knew wouldn't pass, because I have to carry on.” They did it and they come up here to tell you. That is courage, in my book. I'm shaking right now; I'm sorry.

We have a problem with resources to get tools. Onboard ship nowadays you have a credit card. If you need some tools and you cannot get them through the system, go buy them ashore. Find me a wrench you can buy downtown for a Pratt & Whitney FT4 engine. I challenge you to find it. Oh yes, you can order it in Montreal, but they wanted the engine an hour ago. So we have supply problems.

The gentleman who represented the union said a few minutes ago that he did it, and that's true. I experience it at my level. But I don't want to bring any personal problems; that's not my place and that is not your job. You're here to hear about the problems that plague the Canadian Armed Forces right now, the low morale we have in the Canadian Armed Forces. Am I right or wrong?

I could talk about pay raises. From 1990 to 1998, inflation has risen 22%. I got only 6%, but I don't worry about it. I have a general somewhere who got, what, a 19% raise, $ 25,000? Let's work on it. So I'm happy; I'm sure I'm in good hands.

But the main problem in the Canadian Armed Forces right now is stagnation in the ranks. That's what we junior NCMs are suffering right now. We're going nowhere. Members nowadays look at the Canadian Armed Forces as a job only. Hey, it's not a career; it's a job. When I look at it, I find the situation pathetic, and it is.

Three years ago, the Canadian Forces offered FPR, force reduction program, to reduce. So they opened some trades and said, we want this and we want that, but they never got all their quotas. They asked for 80 engineers in this place—I'm sorry about the other trades, but I'm speaking about the engineering trade. They asked for 80 P2s, 30 P1s, or whatever number. They never reached that. Too bad, so sad. We had a little hope that we might rise up the line a little bit, but we didn't see it.

Two months ago, over 100 members of my engineering department heard: “Your contract is over? Okay, I'll give you a three-year extension.” Wow, what a motivation for me and for my guys who work for me. Hey, I have all those P1s, P2s, C2s who got their re-engagement. That means sit down and wait; maybe they'll die and you'll have a promotion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a career is made of improvement, accomplishment, and advancement. In my book, that's what it is.

Improvement? I have a killick who has been a killick for 12 years. How can he improve on being a killick? Hey, improve a little bit more; you can improve your work. What? He has the responsibilities of a killick. He's doing his job; he cannot improve any more.

Accomplishment? Hey, get that job done. Okay, you fixed this; now go on the cleaning station. Guys who are 37 years old are still on their knees scrubbing the deck. Hey, that's good accomplishment.

Advancement? Well, there's none. I don't see a career in there. The only thing I see right now is I have $ 35,000 a year; I get this, so you can send me to clean the deck. I'll do it. I don't care.

• 2235

I've done some thinking and what I've seen is just that for my level—I'm talking about chief petty officer and below, non-commissioned members.... You keep chief petty officer first class and second class. “Okay, you've done your time at sea so we'll put you in a comfortable office”. You have $ 55,000 a year. You have a desk; you have a few guys who work for you who get all the jobs done, and you have a report that you give to an officer. Hey, you can get an afternoon off to go play golf and everything.

Do you think those guys are going to say, “I'm tired of this life, so here's my release, and I'll leave a place for some new blood”? I don't know if you would, but I wouldn't. I earn $ 55,000 a year and I'm the one who signs my own leave pass? I sure wouldn't go anywhere.

What I think is just that they're a little bit too comfortable. If they're a C1, that means they're good in their trade. They are. We need their knowledge onboard a ship. Bring those chiefs onboard a ship and bring them with us when we're going on sea training. Hey, I don't think they would come up with this misery. They would say, “I've done enough; I've done 32 years now. Here's my release; see you. I'm done, I'm through, I'm out”.

If you were to get one C1 out, there would be seven promotions. You'd have the C2s going C1; a P1 going C2; P2, P1; master, P2, and so on. Seven promotions for one man.

Okay, maybe they won't go out. They'll still be able to go to sea. Fine. That means they'll do some work, rather than being behind a desk.

When do we need our break? It's in mid-life. It's not when our child is grown and everything. You want to see them growing. I'd like to be able to go behind a desk when I'm a P2 or a P1 for a year or so, get an administrative paper, and then go on my chief course. Then you'd go back on board a ship.

I'm in a hard sea trade, so I don't see that. As soon as I become a chief—which I'll never see; too bad—I'd go behind a desk for the rest of my career. If a guy is lucky, he may get his chief in 20 years. Then he has 15 years where he can stay behind a desk, go home, and have fun, rather than “next year I'm going 10 months on deployment”.

Hey, it's my job. I don't complain about it. I like to travel and everything.

One more thing. Maybe you cannot put them back onboard a ship because somebody way back then made a decision and got a promotion by taking this decision. Why don't you offer the C1 that after five years at that rank they take a commission? They'd become an officer, so you still open the market for us, for promotion.

You'd enter officer training. They have almost as many in officer training right now as they do recruits. Well, no, not that much—a third. A third of all the recruits. We engaged about 6,000 recruits in 1996 when I was up there, and they had 2,000 officer cadet programs starting. So offer those chiefs commissions and get them into the officer ranks. I don't know. I'm only offering this.

Right now, for every officer, there are 2.3 men. I've heard the logic behind it, the excuse. If we go to war, if we engage 100,000 people, we'll have officers to lead them. Well, I don't know. The cold war is over and done with. If you are 100,000 people, you have the budget just to dress them. Nowadays we don't.

However, many within the Canadian Forces are skeptical that the government will act on or address our concerns. Take a look here. There are 10,000 military members in the Halifax area, and how many show up here? About 100?

We are very skeptical about the role you will have to play. We are, even I, but I think that we had to come up front and tell you our concerns. Not our personal ones. We should, but you're not here to take care, of “Hey, I have a problem there and there”. You're not there to take care of my problem. You are there to take a big picture. I take the big picture and I put it there.

• 2240

Our problem? We are stagnant. We don't have anything to look forward to. We want a career. We want to progress. We want to advance. Right now we are stagnant.

Pay raises? That would be fine. I even heard the Prime Minister say on TV that he'd like to make as much money as a hockey superstar. Well, I'm sorry, Mr. Chrétien, but we did not hire you on the Canadian team, so....

Lately they lowered the standard. When I joined, it was 33 push-ups and 33 sit-ups in one minute, the mile-and-a-half in 12 minutes, and 7 chin-ups. Nowadays, we have to be politically correct and everything. “Nineteen push-ups? Okay. If you cannot run, okay. We'll push you a little bit, because we cannot throw you out.” Wow.

I'll just make a comparison. Let's say I have a hockey team. I want the best team I can get. What will I take? This one who cannot pull his weight, or that one who flies like a bee? I'll take that one if he's good on his skates and everything.

Nowadays we don't even have the choice. I have kids who come onboard who can barely do their job. “Hey, go up the ladder and make it quick.” “Oh, no, no, I don't have to be quick”.

We have missions to do. On the engineering side, I have fires to fight. That means I bring four guys with me. I'm responsible for them, and I had to put a fire out and bring those guys back out.

I'm almost done, Mr. Bertrand.

My only point is just this: give us back something. Make something happen. Offer us something that I can at least show to my guys—“Hey, guys, work better and then you may get promoted, if you're lucky.”

Thank you very much for your time, and I hope you will enjoy your stay in Nova Scotia.

The Chairman: Merci beaucoup.

Eric Hazelwood.

Mr. Eric Hazelwood (Individual Presentation): Honourable chairman and members of the committee, my name is Eric Hazelwood. I am presently serving down at building D-201 in dockyard.

I am a leading seaman. I am 52 years of age, so I know what that gentleman means when he refers to 35-year-olds scrubbing the deck. I've done it.

I joined the navy in 1965 when it was the Royal Canadian Navy, and I got out in 1972 at the wishes of my first wife. She's gone now, thank you.

Then I joined the reserves. I spent 20 years as a reservist. I was class C at Mill Cove from 1988 until 1991. After the Gulf War, they cut the class C contracts due to the budget.

I applied to come back in. The trade was closed, but due to the recommendations that I had and the performance at Mill Cove, they opened the trade and they took me back in, so I was very fortunate. I had help from a very good friend of mine who was a C1, so that helped.

Since then, I have served on the Iroquois. I had never had a course in the military since 1968, in communications, so whatever I had to do, I had to do on my own, had to learn myself, and so on.

I was competing with my peers. I received an excellent PER the first year. I had a problem with an individual I worked with, and I filed a harassment complaint. They tell you that will not haunt you. That is absolute BS, because I went from a 7.3 PER to a 6.3 in one year, with no just reason except I charged this individual. The claim that I filed against him was substantiated.

Then I left there, and went to another ship. I left that ship with the second-highest PER of the radio people in our trade for my rank.

I then went to CFS Mill Cove, and this is where the problem started. I received on my last quarterly—we are rated in 10 categories—the highest quarterly of the individuals on our watch. I received 6 As and 4 Bs.

An incident happened where I did not have a nametag. I had not been issued one. I was told to buy one. I said that wasn't a problem. He was going to let me take the vehicle and go into town that day to get one. That was no problem. Then for some reason he changed his mind. He said to me, “You get kit upkeep allowance, don't you?” “That's correct”, I said to the PO, “but kit upkeep allowance is solely to maintain kit you've been issued. If you have not been issued it, it is not considered kit, so you're not required to maintain something you were not issued.” I had no problem with that; I just wanted to clarify that point with him. After that, the conversation ended. Then I went back to my position and he stated to me, “That will cost you a recorded warning.”

• 2245

What happened was he called my immediate supervisor, the P2, and another lead master seaman of the watch into his office and said, “Hazelwood is to have the lowest PER of the leading seamen on the watch.” That did happen.

I obtained a copy—and I was very fortunate to get it—of my PER, which was written using numbers. I received a score of 8.0. Another chap on my watch, who's a very good friend, received a 7.9. He rated as the second-highest person at CFS Mill Cove that year. I did not rate in the top 25. My 9s got me Ds and Es. His 7s and 8s got him an outstanding PER, which is a G rating, which is the highest you can get.

I grieved that PER. It was investigated. One individual who investigated it said he felt I got the PER I deserved, based on the investigation. He was the only person who stated that. The CO at Mill Cove himself and my petty officer of the watch said I didn't. They rewrote it.

The problem is that the PER structure as we have it right now is absolute garbage. It does not work, and the reason it does not work is you have people all within one trade, but maybe you have five people in the radio trade, we'll say as an example, in one unit. Well, the person in that unit may not believe in giving high scores, but at another unit, the person gives them out like he buys them at a second-hand store. The bottom line is you're competing against all these people across the country, so it doesn't work. And they know that, because they've changed the PER structure, since 1991, at least three times. Basically it's a popularity contest, and this destroys a lot of morale. My morale went down completely when I saw what I had and I didn't even rate in the top 25.

Then in 1996, a very good friend of mine, a P1, committed suicide. He hung himself. We were encouraged to go forward to the military police if we felt we had anything to contribute to this investigation. I did that. I was the only person serving who went forward and gave a statement.

In that statement, I named a certain individual as what I felt was a factor in this person committing suicide. He was a person who put more pressure on the person than what was required, and the person took his life. That police statement, I was told by the military police, was in confidentiality. That police statement was turned around and given to this certain C1 to read.

I was called on my days off. I was told, “Starting on Monday, you're out of Mill Cove.” No problem. I was told I was going into the dockyard, into a certain position. They wanted to keep me in the trade because of my experience. That was no problem, so I went into the dockyard, but I have yet to go into the position that I was supposed to be going into.

Then we had a career managers' meeting. Everybody in our trade was offered terms of service. I'm 52. In order for me to get the pension, I have to stay until age 55, because apparently you cannot get a pension—I just found this out—unless you accumulate 20 years' reg force time, whether it's in one stretch or broken time. So my reserve time does not come into it until after I get 20 years. I cannot get that, because of my age, so therefore I must stay to age 55.

I received an exclusive message from Ottawa saying I am not being rehired due to consistent low performance.

The merit board in Ottawa has four things to judge you by: an annual PER, a special PER, letters of commendation, and course reports. Well, I've had no course since 1968, so they have none of those on me. There have been no letters of commendation, because I haven't saved any admirals' or generals' lives lately. And there have been no special PERs. So all they've had to judge me by are annual PERs.

• 2250

The lowest annual PER to go to Ottawa on me—and I have copies of them—is a D-rated PER, which is middle of average; it's a pretty common PER. So where this consistent low performance comes in we do not know.

I have hired.... Well, Mr. David Bright, Q.C., went through all my documentation. He has more documentation to go by than what Ottawa has, because I gave him notes and everything, good and bad. The letter I received from him states: “There's no way. Your performance was consistently average to above average.” He said, “Although there were comments made by your supervisors, they had absolutely nothing to do with performance.” They're in the hands right now of William Leahey, another attorney, because I get out on July 8. I'm out. That's it.

The individual I named in this police statement, once he read it, that same individual sat on the merit board this year in Ottawa to judge me, which I think is a little weird. I queried that and I was told by my career manager, “Oh, no, no, everything's honest with the merit board.” I have said I doubt the integrity of the merit board, because of what I know they have to judge me by.

I am out on July 8. All I get back is my return of contributions. I lose my pension. I have a 23-year-old son in university. I'm a homeowner. My wife does not work. I have a seven-year-old daughter and a 12-year-old son.

I will be in Ottawa on July 9 with chains around my ankles in the Minister of National Defence's office if I can't get some resolution. It's a railroad; that's all it is. I have done nothing to deserve it, but this is what I have to deal with.

That's the end of it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Eric Hazelwood: You're welcome.

The Chairman: The last witness is Chief Warrant Officer Rick Moffatt.

Chief Warrant Officer Rick Moffatt (Individual Presentation): Good evening. I'd like to welcome you to Halifax as well, from the army side of it anyway. My name is Chief Warrant Officer Moffatt. I'm with the Princess Louise Fusiliers. Presently I have the distinction of being the regimental sergeant-major of what I think is one of the best outfits in Canada.

Recently it was determined by a higher headquarters that a reserve unit requires 40 days of class A training to maintain a trained soldier at the standard that would support the total force concept. What I mean by that is for a reservist, besides the summers, for that soldier—and I'm not talking about a leader, but a soldier—to maintain his skills and to be able to support the UN or any reg force unit, he'd need 40 days of training.

I agree with that calculation. However, in this fiscal year, the brigade, which is my higher headquarters, has passed funding to the unit to support 32 days' training. When I look outside the army reserve I see a different story. I look at the communications squadron, which trains right in my armouries, and they have 40 days' training. They're outside the army headquarters; they're under their own command. And the reserves get a lot more down to the soldier for the parade square.

If I look at the air reserve, they have 15 days a month. If I look at the navy reserve, they have 42 days' training for their class A. It makes it awfully hard for the reserve unit here in Halifax to attract young soldiers to come in and to see the army side of it when you're competing with other people who are getting a lot better and more training.

All of these locations also have better training, or at least much easier training to come by, for summer courses. The navy gets all their people employed in the summer taskings, whatever they may be—here on this coast, on the west coast, or in central Canada somewhere. Yet the best I can offer an infantry soldier, usually after he has his basic trade course, is three weeks' employment.

Recently the reserves were given a long-awaited and well-deserved pay raise. However, without increases to the unit budget, the pay raise does nothing. It really means the soldier is paid more to do less.

• 2255

We were given a package to compensate the class A soldier for his leave. This entitled the soldier to another 9% on top of the basic pay he'd receive every quarter. But again, no increase to the budget, so that 9% meant the unit had to train 9% less.

Throughout history the Canadian army reserve, or the Canadian militia, has fought wars to keep Canada and our allies free. Today we use the reserve force to augment our regular force on UN taskings. A lot of our trained soldiers pass on to the regular force to continue on their army careers. Others will leave, saying the army is not for them. But all will have a better understanding of the army, a better understanding of Canada, and will make a better Canadian citizen.

The reservists take the same oath as the reg force, to stand on guard for our country, to help our country in whatever it may be, in floods, in ice storms, or at war. What we need in the army reserve is similar to what the navy reserve and the air force reserve have. We need a clear mission. The navy has the new ships they're using for coastal defence. The air force has also defined a clear role for the reserves. The army has not.

We need a budget that's realistic, a budget that is deemed at a higher headquarters—a much higher headquarters—and broken out for reserves. Today that reserve budget is passed down through reg force headquarters, and each time more and more is siphoned off the budget.

We need to be given the time to train the soldier on the armoury floor.

The other thing I want to talk about, and this is a short one, is the reserve pay system. Over the years the reserve pay system has been drastically poor. I've had soldiers that haven't been paid for eight months. I've gone to generals every time and said “Well, General, listen, my soldier here hasn't been paid for eight months.”

“Yes, we know. That's a problem. In two weeks' time I'm going to pull the plug out of that computer if it doesn't work and we're going to get something else.”

A month later I see the general again: “General, what happened? The plug is still in. The pay system is still not working.”

“Yes, I know, but we just spent $ 15 million on it. I'm not allowed to pull it out. It's the next higher guy's job.”

I've talked to the Chief of Defence Staff: “Sir, we've got a problem with the reserves. We're not paying them.”

“Yes, I know. In two weeks' time we're going to pull the plug.”

It goes on and on and on. I've been going through this for three years. No one has yet pulled the plug. It's a very political decision and no one has the guts to say, “Okay, we've now spent $ 32 million on this. I'm going to pull the plug.” But no one will do that.

They've come in with other systems over the years, and it's the same thing. None of them work. I've got soldiers who get pay put into their account. They have no idea how much was put into their account. There's no statement. They were just told the pay was put into their account. Sometimes they get a pay statement and the amount that is typed on it is scratched out and there's a pen-written amount over it. They don't know what that pay is for. There's nothing to tell them if they got their FOA, their field allowance. There's nothing to tell them what weekends they were paid for and what nights they were paid for. There's nothing to tell them if it's a claim pay. It's just a cheque.

Every once in a while you get a statement that shows maybe nine months' worth of pay. It comes out with some enormous amount, and then it has another big amount, which subtracts from that amount to look after the local payments you received for the last nine months. Again, it's very hard to figure out exactly what you've been paid for and what you haven't been paid for.

That's really all I have to say. Thank you for your time. I hope you enjoy your stay in Nova Scotia.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Chief. What you're saying has happened here to the army reserves training...we've been told on more than one occasion that it just wouldn't happen. So what you're saying really does contradict what we've been told before, and I want to find out why.

The second thing is this pay system. Somebody's just got to admit it was a complete flop and hold whoever screwed up so badly accountable and get on with a new system.

Can you see any reason why the regular force pay program shouldn't be used for reservists as well?

• 2300

CWO Rick Moffatt: No, I don't see any problem with the regular force pay program except that the regular force one is a lot easier to calculate because you don't have to figure out how many days he's trained. You pay the regular force person 365 days a year.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes.

CWO Rick Moffatt: I don't think it's something we have to invent. There are many pay systems out there that the civilians have. They all pay their people. They get paid every two weeks or they quit. I'm surprised that the Canadian army is allowed to do it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thanks.

The Chairman: Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: I was always under the impression that the budget set for the reserves was rather fixed. What you mentioned here is that it goes through the regular forces system and then money is siphoned off.

CWO Rick Moffatt: Yes. Let's take the floods, for instance. We used reservists in those spots. So that money is siphoned off the parade square floor and then paid to reservists to do the flood work. Therefore, that takes away from our training budget.

Mr. Art Hanger: And who deems it to be so?

CWO Rick Moffatt: It's not at my level.

Mr. Art Hanger: Obviously not. Even on an emergency basis, aren't there contingency plans in place such that the government would fork out whatever is required? They wouldn't necessarily siphon it off of a budget for reservists who are actually also involved in the same service.

CWO Rick Moffatt: No. It's quite common for our budget to be taken back or portions of it to be taken back. In 1997, it took until the fall of 1997 for the budget to actually come out on the fiscal year.

Mr. Art Hanger: So you never know how.... You can't really plan in advance.

CWO Rick Moffatt: No. You can't plan at all in advance. This year's budget is now out. It's better than last year's. It's at 32 man-days per soldier.

Mr. Art Hanger: If a number of those young fellows applied for the reserves, it's difficult really to determine what the size of that contingency is going to be until you see the bottom line.

CWO Rick Moffatt: It's very hard. They've come up with a couple of ways to figure out what that will be. One thing is that they took the recruits and said that a higher headquarters will pay for the recruits so that this wouldn't come off the unit's budget.

But as the year progresses and we get closer to the end of the year in March, we quite commonly have to shut the unit down because there's no budget to train them. Yet we'll get to the last two weeks of March, as we did this year and many other years, and all of a sudden, some reserve money becomes available. But then again, it's much too late. It's hard to plan. It's hard to come up with good training.

Mr. Art Hanger: That's it exactly. You've just explained to me the complaints I have heard from people who have joined the reserves. Everything seemed to fall apart as far as the direction they started out going in. It just isn't wound up the way it should be because there's no money. Is that it?

CWO Rick Moffatt: Definitely.

Mr. Art Hanger: Okay. Thank you very much.

CWO Rick Moffatt: Thank you again.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Ladies and gentlemen, it's been a long evening. I just wanted to thank each and every one of you. We'll reconvene tomorrow at 8.30 a.m.

The meeting is adjourned.