NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Monday, March 16, 1998

• 1400

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)): Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bob Wood. I'm one of the vice-chairs of the committee and I'll be chairing these particular hearings today.

I will make just a few opening remarks to let you know how we have set this up, so there are no big surprises. Translation service is available to you. If you feel more comfortable making your presentations in French, by all means go right ahead. Everything is being recorded and sent directly back to Ottawa as we speak.

Because of what was brought to our attention by some of the folks in the last couple of weeks, we certainly hope you will be open and candid with us. As you know, the minister has made sure no repercussions whatsoever will be brought upon anybody. We certainly hope you will be open and candid. We really want to hear your views on various situations.

We have received the briefs of the people who are making presentations today. Some of them are rather lengthy. We ask that you summarize your remarks. Your briefs are here and will obviously be dealt with. We would like to limit your presentations to around 10 minutes. Then we have questions and answers.

After we have finished with the four formal briefs we have received, we would like to go to the people in the audience and ask them to come forward and speak for between three and five minutes. Identify yourself when you do that, so we can get it recorded and also so we can ask you questions.

I'll introduce some of my colleagues. From the government we have David Pratt and Judi Longfield, and from the Conservative Party my colleague David Price. We've lost a couple of people because of various situations that have happened in Ottawa in the last hour or so.

We are ready to receive our first presentation, from Sergeant Nicholson. Sergeant.

Sergeant Philip Nicholson (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, sir. I'm here this afternoon to address concerns held by forces personnel about quality of life issues. It is my opinion that while the issues are obvious and discussed continuously by previous committees, both internal and external to the department, very little progress is evident. For the next five minutes I would like to discuss what appears to be at the root of the problem within the CF. Whether we are discussing problems of morale, PMQs, or quality of life, grievances all hinge on one of three related issues: Canadian soldiers are poorly paid, poorly supported, and poorly represented.

CANFORGEN 118/97 details apparent pay increases to date. In the last year and a half other ranks have received a 3.7% comparability adjustment to bring us closer to our civilian counterparts, a gap that never should have happened in the first place, and a 1.47% economic adjustment. This is our first pay raise in over five years, just over 5%.

At the same time PMQ rates have risen over 22%. That translates into a monthly rent increase of $125 a month since 1992.

In addition, assuming an annual inflation rate of 3% a year, a $30,000 salary five years ago is now worth $25,500. This is absolutely unacceptable, and more than any other issue adversely affects the soldier's quality of life. The CF asks us to do more with less at work, but we can't expect our families to understand why we should do more with less at home.

• 1405

Examples of this financial degradation in our standard of living come from the Kingston Military Family Resource Centre, which reports that between seventy and eighty families used their services over Christmas, not for money but for food. Soldiers are asking why this has been allowed to happen and how our senior officers could allow this.

I ask how, on the heels of up to $4,000 bonuses, senior officers could be in the process of negotiating with Treasury Board raises of up to 19%. Who is representing the soldiers' dire circumstances to Treasury Board? And what are the other ranks receiving? Only the promises of generals apparently working hard on our behalf.

Excuse me if I'm a little skeptical. I find it disturbing that in the aftermath of the Somalia inquiry there continues to be an absence of leadership in the Canadian forces. What is important here is not what the official policy is or what the platitudes offered by the general staff in Ottawa are, but what the troops perceive. And what the troops perceive is a polarization, a widening gap between senior officers and themselves.

All members of Parliament, all members of Treasury Board, all members of SCONDVA and our senior leadership are equally responsible for our deteriorating standard of living. The government continues to slash $1 billion from the defence budget knowing full well that half the budget is for human resources and that the members will bear the brunt of these cuts.

In the absence of pay increases, questionable expenditures on cancelled programs for Swedish all-terrain vehicles, for $45 million, and search-and-rescue helicopters, for $478 million, all rankle the rank and file. Even with new equipment, morale will not improve until pay and benefits do, despite what well-paid senior staff say.

So what are the options? The first option is that status quo remains in effect and the troops remain poorly paid and continue to receive no support from either political or military leaders. The poor morale will continue, malaise will reach epidemic proportions, and highly trained people will continue to leave the military in droves in search of higher-paying jobs.

And why not? The jobs are out there. This became apparent during the recent ice storm when our lineman were receiving $12.47 a day in allowances and sleeping on a gym floor while hydro workers were being paid up to $700 a day in allowances and sleeping in hotels. It's nothing short of slave labour. Option one is unacceptable.

The second option is for service members to form an association. The American forces have an association that serves them well. It is now assessed that when adding benefits to their base pay, American servicemen are well ahead of their Canadian counterparts, and in addition, they enjoy lower taxation and prices.

Unfortunately, it is questionable whether an association would work in Canada. Unlike the Americans, we do not have a large number of military veterans in the government to lobby on our behalf, nor do we possess a large military-industrial complex whose interests are best served by a large military. There is also a concern that it will be the same ineffectual leadership who will cross over in their retirement to manage the affairs of the association.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Sgt Philip Nicholson: They don't represent us now and they won't represent us in the future.

The final option is a union. First, let's clarify what a union is and what it is not. A union is not a forum to decide whether to attack or not. A union is not anti-military and it is not anti-discipline. A system already exists for in-service grievances, and by and large that system works quite well. A union is, however, representation, self-representation by soldiers to their employer, the government. Most European armies are unionized. The German army is unionized and few would suggest an associated drop in combat effectiveness or discipline.

A military union in Canada would be mandated to discuss a triad of pay, compensation and housing. It would give the other ranks the ability to bring to the attention of government pay inequities and a poor standard of living, without having to go thorough the senior staff, who have been perceived to be ineffective in this regard. It will force the accountability of the senior leadership and ultimately result in a better standard of living for our junior ranks. Seventy to eighty families at our base food bank is seventy to eighty families too much.

In closing, I hope that you, the members of SCONDVA, are sincere in your task and have the ability to not only make suggestions but to influence the decisions of Parliament and the Treasury Board. It is everyone's fear that this committee is mere tokenism. Previous quality-of-life surveys have already identified the same areas of concern—without action.

We all know what the problems are: poor pay, poor support and poor representation. If SCONDVA truly intends to make their time and discovery something more than an exercise, their time on this study must soon end and energy must be put into a resolution. Talking is not enough. Action speaks louder than words.

Otherwise, your committee, like many others, will be perceived to be nothing more than infrequent tourists into the military reality and your report yet another make-work project which will be properly done and filed.

The department must pay soldiers what they deserve. Poor pay and disillusionment with our senior leadership are providing a very fertile ground for unionization, an option I am sure the department would prefer to avoid.

• 1410

Finally, in response to previous comments made by a member of this committee, the honourable Mr. Hanger suggested that if we wanted a pay raise, soldiers would have to have public support. Well, Mr. Hanger—I assume he's not here today—I believe we have the support. Ask the public in the Saguenay region of Quebec, or ask Manitobans who have suffered the threat of massive flooding. Or ask the public of eastern Ontario and Quebec who lived through the ice storm of the century.

Public support is not the issue here. The real issue here is government support. Responsibility rests not only with the Minister of National Defence, but with individual members of government whose ignorance of the Canadian Forces, what we do and how we do it, is complete.

Public support? If the government were sincere, it would use the good faith and overwhelming public support garnered by the Canadian Forces' assistance in domestic crises and use it for facilitating reasonable changes to pay and benefits for soldiers. Soldiers have done their jobs and more. This truly is your challenge now.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Sergeant Nicholson, thank you. Don't leave just yet. I'm sure there are going to be lots of questions for you.

I also want to point out that regardless of who's here and who isn't, Sergeant, all the briefs and everything else are reported back to Mr. Hanger and the other members of the committee. Mr. Hanger will be well aware of your comments, and so will all the other members who didn't make it here either because of other commitments or for some reason or another.

We open up for questions. Go ahead, David.

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you very much for your presentation. I think we already agree with a lot of it. A lot we've already heard.

One little thing that was missing in there and that I'd like you to comment on is what you would suggest as far as pay is concerned. There have been comments, of course, that it should follow along with that of civil servants or that it should be a completely restructured pay system. What do you have in mind for it?

Sgt Philip Nicholson: I think a lot of people have made the comment already that perhaps it's unfair to peg us to the civil servants. They don't sit in trenches in Bosnia for six months out of the year. There is no civilian equivalent, so perhaps it's unfair for us to be pegged like clerks in one of the departments.

Mr. David Price: That's what I was looking for. Do you want to try to bring that out a little bit more? What do you see? What kind of direction should we use? What can we base it on?

Sgt Philip Nicholson: I think the brigade commander in Calgary suggested a 15% raise across the board. I would quite happily accept that, to be honest.

Mr. David Price: On the other hand, I could imagine that you would not be happy if you saw, say, the top ranks getting 15% of their salary as compared to 15% of yours.

Sgt Philip Nicholson: Obviously there's a big difference, because 15% of $100,000 is a hell of a lot more than 15% of a private's salary at $19,500. We have to raise the standard of living for these people.

Mr. David Price: That's right. That's why I say it's not quite that simple. If you take 15% at the top and add that on, that shoots the budget up pretty quickly, whereas the 15% at the bottom could look very reasonable.

Do you have any other suggestions to go along with that?

Sgt Philip Nicholson: No, it's pretty well pay raises, graduated like you've suggested, of course, since 15% for generals is quite a healthy pay chunk.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Sergeant, do you have any comments about the whole idea of incentive pay for people in lower ranks, such as corporals who are doing specialty types of work? Right now, they're locked into a pay scheme that doesn't allow for the incremental increases of say a captain or a major.

Sgt Philip Nicholson: I discussed this with finance officers already. They suggest that the reason we have four incentives and they have ten is that our jumps or increases are that much smaller, and that to have ten incentives would literally allow for jumps of $10 per incentive. They suggest there is just no point to that.

I think the issue here is that there would have to be a higher base-level pay for privates and corporals and other ranks. On the question of technicians who are getting underpaid, for example, I think you have to look at specialist pay once again. Computer software people over here are getting paid $35,000 a year when their civilian counterparts are getting paid $70,000. That's not very much incentive to come to work every day. I'll be honest.

So, yes, I think you have to look at specialization pay for special jobs, and basically an increase in base salary pretty well across the board.

• 1415

Mr. David Pratt: On another subject, I think all of us recognize that the buck stops at the political people ultimately—the cabinet and members of Parliament—with respect to the general wages and living and working conditions of members of the armed forces. Do you think the Government of Canada is doing as good a job as it might be doing in educating the Canadian public as to the role of the Canadian Armed Forces?

Sgt Philip Nicholson: I think I can categorically say no. The military has done an excellent job in aids to civil power in the last couple of years. They've performed that wonderfully. There have been no negative comments at all from the press. We've done all we can.

We have no representation. We can't go out and sell ourselves to the public or to the government, for that matter. It's now time for the government to act. We've done our bit.

Mr. David Pratt: I have just a final question. If these issues weren't addressed—pay, housing, equipment, etc.—where would you see morale headed?

Sgt Philip Nicholson: I think it's already down there. You go to NDHQ and it's happening. How much lower can it go? People are tired, and people are tired of waking up tired. People are tired of coming to work and every day in the paper there's another negative comment or another disparaging remark about the brass getting overpaid. How does that look to us, or to a private or a corporal? They're fed up.

We've tossed around the idea of unionization at work, but what would we have to bargain with? So the military goes on strike—so what? But I would suggest it would have a very severe impact. I'm not saying strike, obviously, but these are things the department really has to look at.

What happens when a brigade is due for rotation in Bosnia and sits down and says no? Until you sort out our basic quality of life issues, then we're not going. What's DFAIT stuck with? They have to act. I would rather see the government act sooner rather than later. The fact that this committee is here in the first place says something is not right. It's a shame that it's come to this.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any other questions of Sergeant Nicholson?

Could I just ask one? You touched on unions and you also talked about an association. I don't think we've heard that in our hearings so far. Can you elaborate a little bit on how it all works, or do you know?

Sgt Philip Nicholson: Yes. I look at the American association, and once again they're concerned primarily with pay, housing, and food. Food I don't feel is that valid of an issue in today's army.

I just don't see where the association would have enough power to effectively alter the system or to effectively lobby the government for change on quality of life issues. I just don't see it being powerful enough.

As to my brief, I said the American government has a lot of military veterans, and the military is very well supported nationally. Therefore what the military wants the military normally gets. Here in Canada I believe it just won't be the same.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Woods): Okay.

Thank you very much, by the way, for an excellent presentation.

Voices: Hear, hear!

Sgt Philip Nicholson: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next I would like to call on Master Corporal Plouffe.

Master Corporal Jacques Plouffe (Individual Presentation): Board members, the following presentation will be addressed in threefold. I had to shorten it quite a bit, because this is a very involved case; however, part one will be the introduction, in part two I'll be reading parts of the letter addressed to the Chief of Defence Staff, and part three will be conclusions and the most current information available to date in reference to this case.

The letter I'm about to read was addressed to the Chief of Defence Staff after I had exhausted all possible avenues within my normal chain of command in order to attempt to resolve these problems after problems, which kept on compounding until the whole situation became totally out of control. It appears that today I have reached a point where there is no one able to or capable of helping me.

• 1420

This is the letter to the CDS:

Sir, I feel that it is my responsibility as a Canadian Army soldier to inform you and respond to your open letter to the army posted on the Internet dated 19 March 1997. I believe that it is my duty to inform you of the events that have taken over my career and my family life.

The end of my contract has been scheduled for 14 January 1998 following a decision of the CRBM. I am officially being released from the Canadian Military on medical grounds, but let me assure you that the only reasons for the release are due to a parody of errors and multiple systematic mismanagement practices resulting in wrongful dismissal, permanent injury, as well as severe financial hardship imposed on my family.

This is truly a case of discrimination, violation of human rights, medical and administrative mismanagement as well as mandatory retirement without any benefit packages. I will clearly prove my case to you by addressing the following sequence of events as they unfolded during the past five years of my career: military exercise; the first injury; improper medical attention at the scene; improper incident report; improper accident report; incomplete summary investigation; personnel mismanagement; a second injury; improper medical attention and accident incident report; personnel mismanagement; improper medical diagnosis from the MO; improper medical treatment; improper medical diagnosis from specialists; medical treatment not granted; medical file tampering; personal file tampering; improper CMRB decision; mismanagement of BPSO report and recommendations; ministerial inquiry result; administrative mismanagement; attempt to cover up this case,; violation of human rights; financial losses; long-term effects on physical disability; long-term effect on career opportunities; short- and long-term effects on personal life and family; moral obligations of DND; requested resources not granted; SISIP and DVA coverage; medical, physical, mental and family support; release from DND; and intentions after release.

I have no choice but to request an investigation from a board of inquiry and a review in the Department of National Defence decision. The evidence and proof of my statement will be clearly explained in the following pages of this written representation.

...

I was involved in a serious Military vehicle accident during operation Lynx Mercury in August 92. In order to separate and remove two vehicles off the mountain, civilian bulldozers had to be called in. I sustained injury to my back at that time, however the pain was manageable and I could escape the wreckage. I was the driver of the 5/4 ton vehicle...

Do you have the pictures with you? There were pictures when I sent it to the CDS. They would be on the last page.

In the total confusion and disorder immediately following the accident, no immediate first aid or medical care was given at the scene. ...the Officer in charge decided that since I had no apparent broken bones, no outside medical attention would be required.

...

The policy of the unit at the time was very clear, as we were constantly reminded by the SSM on parades to “Put up and Shut up, and remember that you are only one paycheck away from welfare.” I complied, because my back condition was somewhat manageable.

The second injury occurred in December 94. ... While I was climbing the front of a vehicle to access the top, I fell off and hurt my back again, this time making the damages to my lower back permanent. After two days of severe pain and not being able to move, I decided to seek the assistance of a chiropractor, who was under contract by DND for other service members. The Doctor took x-rays and tried to fix the problem but was not successful. When I returned to work in January 95 after a leave period, I went directly to the Base Hospital Medical Officer and told him what had happened and the steps I had taken. I was given light duties for a period of time and directed to see the Regimental Medical Officer.

Contrary to CFAO 24-2 para 4, neither the Medical Officer nor my Commanding Officer raised a CF98 (Report of injuries) following this accident.

No accident report was filed following the accident because no incident report was filed in the first place.

The Regimental Medical Officer requested that I try Physiotherapy. The Physio Therapist mentioned if there was any chance of recovery, I would have to follow six months of rest combined with an extensive Physio treatment program.

I attempted to follow the Physio treatment program. However, I was constantly tasked otherwise by my supervisors on more important priorities to the point where it became impossible to follow the prescribed treatment. Hence, the program was rendered ineffective as it was indicated by the Physio Therapist. I had to give up the Physio program.

The diagnosis of the Regimental MO at the time was that I had a case of degenerative disk disease.

This is also known as an old man's disease. I was 32 years old at the time.

• 1425

I truly believe that this MO, who is a general practitioner, was at best attempting a wild guess. This Doctor is not a back specialist. The MO diagnosed the problem as DDD without being aware of the circumstances surrounding the cause of the first injury.

The injury never healed so after quite a long time of waiting, it was recommended that I seek the services of a specialist. I spent a total of six minutes in the office of the specialist.

At that time he had no X-rays or any information whatsoever. He asked to have these documents made available to him. He requested to see me again when this information was made available to him. I never saw this doctor again.

At this time I was given a temporary medical category with restrictions, to see if the situation would get better through time. Unfortunately it did not. So I was then given a permanent medical category with restrictions. At the request of the career shop I had to complete a medical Part 1 and Part 2. It was determined that I was medically fit for my trade. I was promoted to MCpl and a posting message shortly followed...in August 96. Meanwhile, the notification of change of medical profile and medical limitations...was sent to Ottawa for final approval.

I did inform the career manager via the Foreman of Sigs that I did not really want the promotion and posting to Pembroke because my wife had a secured income of $40,000 a year and a pay increase of $40 a month did not justify any reasonable or logical personal career decision while being detrimental to my family's standard of living. After trying to argue my point, the response I was given was that it was to be understood between the career manager and myself that the posting to Pembroke was for six years and was for career progression as explained by the Foreman of Sigs. I accepted the promotion and the posting.

Shortly after I arrived in Pembroke, the CF2088 that was submitted for final approval came back. The CF2088 had been amended by the Base Surgeon and the Director of Medical Services to change my medical profile to unfit field. It is interesting to note at this point that I never met, spoke to or was examined by the BSurg or the DMS or any of his staff. The consequence of this sudden change therefore made me not suitable with the criteria required in reference with the Universality of Service guidelines based on the National Defence Act 33(1). This action taken by the DMS generated actions to be taken by the Career Medical Review Board. ...

Pending the final decision of the CMRB, I was given the opportunity to submit any documentation and a written representation to the board that could help them reach their decision. I wrote a multi-page letter to the board including pictures and clearly explained all the medical and administrative errors that had occurred thus far. The written representation was submitted along with a letter from my Commanding Officer. The CMRB came back with a recommendation for a 3B medical release based on the original 6 minute examination visit, and the incomplete report and assessment of the specialist as well as the improper diagnosis of the regimental MO. ... It seems very apparent the written representation, all the paperwork and the pictures most likely never made it to the CMRB members.

Within a very short time, I received a phone call from the office of the Base Personnel Selection Officer, requesting that I apply for a change of trade and attend a meeting so an assessment report could be generated...

At this meeting I was told that at age 35 I was too old to be retrained. It was indicated that no matter what happened I would be released under a 3B medical.

After five months at my new place of employment, I was told I would be released medically. So I decided to investigate the matter further. I called the release section and inquired about the medical release procedures and benefits. I was told that since this was not a posting but a medical release, I was not entitled to the Guaranteed Home Sale Plan.

I already had to sell the house I owned in Kingston under that plan, and although I lost a considerable amount of money on the sale, estimated at $20,000... ... One must wonder if part of this forced retirement package includes personal bankruptcy.

Considering the circumstances, I requested a posting to Kingston “for release purposes” and had no success, so then I formally requested a “compassionate” posting on 20 March 1997 for the following reasons:

a. after reviewing the assigned medical profile and the report attached by the personnel selection Officer, my termination of employment appeared to be eminent;

b. the employment opportunities in this area are very restricted;

—I'm talking about Pembroke again—

c. I will not be able to carry the mortgage on my newly acquired residence on my Military pension;

d. my spouse is still employed on a full-time basis in Kingston;

e. due to excessive stress imposed on my family, my spouse is on medical stress leave;

f. I believe that the present posting should not have occurred due to the fact that my medical classification was not totally resolved at the time of posting.

• 1430

Although this request was supported and sent to my career manager by my unit Commanding Officer, the orderly room has a confirmation receipt that this request was in fact received, many verbal conversations via the telephone had taken place, and several messages were left on the career manager's answering machine requesting updates on the situation, my career manager denies the fact that this request was ever made or received by his office. It would be worthwhile to mention that at this point my family situation was deteriorating at a rather rapid pace, my wife was talking about ending our relationship and my kids were and are still failing their academic year at school.

My career Manager...kept on saying to my supervisors that he specifically remembered telling me at the time of posting not to purchase a house in Pembroke. This is not true, as we never had this conversation, and if there was such a conversation, why was I given a house hunting trip and why weren't there restrictions on my posting message?

...

According to the headquarters administration staff in Petawawa this chain of events are quite normal as it happens all the time, there is nothing they can do because that is just the way things are in the military.

The posting remained unresolved until such time that a DPCA directed the career manager's office to provide me and my family with an administrative posting back to Kingston. ...

After several attempts on my wife's part to get answers and trying desperately to find solutions to these problems, the Kingston MPP finally requested a Ministerial inquiry. The results were quite simple as obviously there was no apparent wrongdoing on DND's part. My wife never got any answers back in reference with the said inquiry.

Upon my arrival at CFSCE Kingston I realized that my posting to the new unit was not documented and totally unexpected, that no posting message was ever sent to the gaining unit.

Now that the GHSP was approved and I was back in Kingston, there was one unresolved issue with regards to the house that I had just purchased one year ago in Pembroke. Once again the same financial nightmare was about to repeat itself and I had to carry two homes for three months for the second time within a one year time frame. Due to a major misunderstanding with the GHSP process and in an attempt to resolve the matter, the following memo was sent on the 27 Oct 97...

I will not read the memo.

While attempting to resolve these several problems, I am so grateful that finally some of the administration staff within DND namely at CFSCE were so patient with me and the problems imposed on me and my family. The administration at CFSCE headquarters namely the Chief Clerk, the Adjutant and the School Commandant as well as the Padre were honest and brave enough to at least make an honest effort in trying to help me. Within the first 48 hours of the case being presented to the staff, an internal investigation at the unit level was started. This is the first time since the beginning of this whole mess that someone was finally taking the time to listen and attempt to take action. The CFSCE administration staff even went as far as to try to extend my contract for six months... The request was turned down twice.

The results of the unit investigation after I submitted all the paperwork that I had in my possession revealed an outright display of Medical file tampering as well as Personal information file tampering due to a significant amount of documents missing. To most people like myself when we are directly involved in this translates to a plain and simple cover up for other people's mistakes.

I have been employed by the Canadian military for the past 17 years as a Radio Technician.

...

Besides the two injuries previously mentioned, my employer should not have forced me to embark on severe body exercise while I was still in an acute phase of back pain, thus possibly aggravating the injury. It is very much certain that the actions taken over the several months of imposed physical abuse following the injuries are also directly related to my present condition. The end results are fact, and it is certainly another contributing factor, as the damages that occurred are now permanent. I have followed the advice given for possible treatment until the time came that my supervisors felt that this back condition was not as important to them as it was to me. The blame should not be put on me.

In respect of the universality of service principle and occupational duties, the tasks are definitely not described accurately and therefore can be misleading. Based on this way of dealing with the issue, a great percentage of CF members could be released or should have been released a long time ago. The universality of service criteria is left open to interpretation in the eyes of the enforcer or the victim, as the guidelines are not clear nor specific.

• 1435

So far since the initial start up in this case one year ago and the complaints being addressed, I have made the following progress.

...

The case so far has proven beyond any doubt that there was wrong doing, as well as medical and administrative mismanagement.

This is a permanent back condition and I am very well aware of when and where it started.

The available pictures taken at the scene of the accident, have been analyzed by the accident reconstruction experts with the local Police Department, their findings are conclusive; “there is no doubt and it would be impossible to walk out of this wreckage without any visible or hidden permanent injuries”.

Regardless of the Base Surgeon's opinion in this case, so far two other Doctors one Military and another civilian Doctor have already connected without a doubt “the injury to the cause”.

...

I request an investigation from a Board of inquiry in order to eliminate and clear any doubt associated with any possible wrong doing that could be attributed to my actions in this case. Such an investigation will possibly restore part of or all the documentation necessary in order to be able to file appropriate claims with the Department of Veteran Affairs and SISSIP. To date the claims for pensions are not being granted because there is no information related to any incidents or accidents anywhere on my medical or personal files. So far this request has not been granted.

At this time there is a request for help in order to formulate a proper claim or redress or grievance against the Crown in order to provide restitution of all cost incurred leading to severe financial hardship imposed on myself and my family that were beyond my control and that could and should have been totally avoided. Between the three homes I had to purchase and sell during the past year and the associated expenses related to the two postings, at first view a very quick estimate of the incurred cost would be around $57,000.

...

Counselling sessions have been made available for my wife and myself in order to start rebuilding our lives with what is left of our relationship.

I was given the opportunity to participate in a vocational rehabilitation program granted from within DND but this program has now been terminated as a result of my eminent termination of employment.

The compulsory retirement due to physical disability stated in this case clearly discriminates against serving members who are capable of working and want to do so, by forcing them into early retirement before their normal retirement age or the normal end of contract.

In conclusion: While on duty performing Military taskings, I was injured twice on the job, leading to permanent damages. Since 1992, no real attempts have been made to rectify or to correct the medical situation, not that it seems possible to do so after this length of time. The result is now a permanent injury condition. This disability is of enough importance that the military establishment feels that they have no other recourse but to release me under medical grounds without even having to review any of the submitted or remaining files available to them. My end of contract as established by the CMRB is due for 14 January 98.

Before the above-mentioned accidents and the subsequent actions which were taken, I was a healthy and strong 30 year old serviceman with no prior personal or family history of this condition. I do agree with the fact that I am now limited in the type and duration of daily activities I can perform, however the fact still remains that service members with permanent job related injuries are still employed and have been for a long time as this institution has made an effort for those selected personnel in order to accommodate them so they may continue a normal career and family life.

...

With all the facts mentioned, I have nothing left but to hope that the concern you have expressed in reference with the “care of our soldiers and their families” is in fact how you really feel about our Canadian soldiers. So far I have spoken to at least 25 administration and supervisory personnel with no success nor was I given any help whatsoever in trying to resolve this administration nightmare until I finally made it to CFSCE Kingston. I feel that the system has failed me completely.

Two copies of this letter, sent to the CDS's office via two different couriers, were received on September 16. On January 26, or 39 days later, the CDS staff did not even have the decency to acknowledge receipt of this letter. On that day, a copy of the document was given to the office of Art Hanger, defence critic for the Reform Party. After his review a second ministerial inquiry was launched.

• 1440

Now, I must say, the first ministerial inquiry that came out found no wrongdoing and nothing wrong with the way the case was handled. So the second one was launched, and since then I have not heard any reports.

I am told there is no provision within our system for resolving these types of actions. If the error would have been my doing, the system's recourse is to seize my pay, throw me in jail or fire me. But since we are fighting the institution, no one has to take responsibility. I am now left with the burden of trying to resolve the unfinished business that the Canadian Armed Forces has left me.

The resulting effects are such that I am now being medically released from the CF. I suffer chronic lower back pain, causing numbness in my left leg and sharp pain in my right buttock, which are severely affecting my work attendance and capability and my sleep pattern, which is combined with depression, memory loss and the ability to concentrate for any period of time.

To date I have not been seen by a back specialist nor given any proper medical attention. My physical and emotional state resulting from this injury, as well as its long-term effect, is totally outside of and beyond my control. I am now very limited as to the duration and length of the type of work and daily activity relating to a normal everyday lifestyle. This chronic condition prevents me from being able to enjoy the basic activities and necessities in order to lead a normal and healthy everyday life.

That's it for me.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Master Corporal Plouffe, could we have your last submission? I think you referred to it as “group 3”. For some reason, we don't have it in our brief.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: Yes, sir, you don't have it because I was away for the last couple of days and when I cleared it with the proper people it was cleared for me to do an introduction, read the letter and do the third part. It will be submitted to you next week. I was asked to finish up whatever I read here and to submit it to the board.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): So we will get it. Thank you.

Questions? David.

Mr. David Price: First of all, it is a very individual case and it is already being looked at. I did have a couple of questions. You mentioned that you had incurred costs. The document mentions $35,000 and you mentioned $57,000.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: Yes, I forgot to add that my mortgage would have been at $74,000 right now. But I left Kingston and was away for a year. I came back and now I have half of a house, compared to what I had before, and my mortgage is back up to $96,000 because of all the moving and everything else.

Mr. David Price: Okay. I just wondered about the difference.

I didn't follow clearly how far you went up through the regular chain of command as your problem progressed, which I believe was before you wrote the letter to General Baril.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: I started with the normal chain of command. Of course you go to the administration people. This situation is so involved and so intense that they would rather look away from it than actually try to deal with it. Wherever I was at whatever time, whether I was in Kingston or in Pembroke, when I went to the administration staff their basic response was, “Shut up. This is normal stuff. Everybody goes through this.” I did not find that answer actually acceptable.

Mr. David Price: But at the local level did you still keep climbing through the chain?

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: Yes. There was material with CFC, the first people who were actually willing to listen. At first glance, they were ready to launch five or six redresses within the system, but we were so constrained with time. That would have been the third time. Originally my release date was July 24, 1996. After that it was January 14, 1997, because of the extension from CMRB. After that, I was definitely out of the system. I believe it was something like four days before I was actually going to be out and the message was finally cut and I was then extended to March 31, 1998, in order to try to resolve some of these issues. Where it leaves me today is that I am being kicked out in 14 days and nothing has been solved yet.

Mr. David Price: How long have you been in?

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: Seventeen years, sir.

Mr. David Price: Seventeen years. As it is now, will you receive a pension after being kicked out, a reduced pension, naturally?

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: A 17-year pension will be based on my normal time, without a penalty. So the 2% per year that we get gives me 34% of my salary as a pension. A medical pension through DVA has not been granted yet so we are still waiting on that.

• 1445

Mr. David Price: In the meantime, what about medical insurance and expenses? What happens there?

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: The problem where we sit with this one is that because there's no documentation within my personal file and/or medical file, when I try to present the case to anybody, they're saying “What are you talking about? There's just no paperwork there, so therefore you cannot submit a claim to DVA, to SISIP, or to anybody.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Thank you, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any other questions?

I have a couple of questions. On one of the pages here, you said you spent a total of six minutes in the office of the specialist and never saw the doctor again.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: That's correct, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Did you ask to see the doctor again, or was it left under the impression that they would get back to you, or how does that procedure work?

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: How that works is, first of all, Dr. Simurda—everybody here knows him—is an orthopedic surgeon, but not a back specialist. That's for starters.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): He's on the base here, is he?

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: He's a civilian, sir, under contract with DND.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Oh, I see.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: He runs a very lucrative business here at base hospital, and when we go in there—I believe he comes in once a month—we all stand in line like this, you see, and he has only so much time to look at each patient. So when you go in there, you are even briefed by the person who has your medical file: “Hurry up, hurry up, we have only so much time; this guy is costing us money here.”

So you go in, and this doctor twists you a bit. He says “Yes, but I can't really make a proper diagnosis here. What I need are X-rays and a CT scan. Once you've made those available to me, at that point come and see me again.”

If you look at my personal file, at the bottom it says it was done. I have never seen this doctor again. As a matter of fact, I've never seen any doctor—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Again.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: —again.

The last time I went out there was just last month. I was in so much agony and pain. I saw a medic. He packed me full of pills and sent me back home.

Ms. June Cayen (Individual Presentation (Wife of Master Corporal Plouffe)): I phoned Colonel Gagnon, a medical officer in Ottawa. He told me he'd get back to me, and that was over a month and a half ago. I told him he had never had his medical attention...

[Inaudible—Editor]. I never heard anything back—nothing.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): What was his name again?

Ms. June Cayen: Colonel Gagnon. I've heard nothing back from him.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): He's in Ottawa at the...?

Ms. June Cayen:

[Inaudible—Editor].

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Would you mind standing in front with your husband? Just identify yourself for the record.

Ms. June Cayen: I'm June Cayen, Jacques' wife.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Give me the Colonel Gagnon story again, just in case we didn't get it.

Ms. June Cayen: As a result of this letter to the CDS, Colonel Gagnon phoned me and asked me what the problem was. I informed him that he had not seen anybody for medical attention, and this was just not acceptable. As a civilian, I have access to all the doctors I want to see; he has access to nobody. He told me he would look into it and get back to me, and I've heard nothing back.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): What has been the timeframe on that?

Ms. June Cayen: It has been in the last month and a half, two months.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Six weeks. Thank you.

The thing that's a little scary here is, according to you, Corporal, the receipts have all become missing. Verbal conversations by telephone have taken place, several messages were left, and your career manager denies the fact that this request was ever made or received by his office. I mean, that has to be a little concerning, a little scary.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: I'll tell you, sir, when people hear this story, they either think I'm nuts or lying, until they actually start an investigation. Once an investigation is done or looked into, every point and everything I've said in here today is the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I am guilty of three things: I'm guilty of doing what I was told, when I was told to do it, and the way I was told to do it, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): No, believe me, I'm not questioning you at all.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: It's incredible.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, it seems to be.

Also, the paperwork was another... Your medical file.

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: Well, sir, it's like this: I'm sitting in the office while the staff over at CFC are looking through my personal files and medical files, and they're saying there are no entries between the years 1993 and 1995. Two years of medical paperwork have disappeared. We're not talking about a couple of pieces of documentation here, we're talking about two years.

• 1450

After that, we went into my pers file and I said there should be at least a medical screening for when I went to Alert. I went to Alert for six months. He asked me if I was in Alert for two weeks. I was there for 183 days, but there's no mention of that in my personnel file or in my medical file either. The paper work is just not there, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I don't know how the chain of command works here, so this might be just a crazy question. Without getting you into any trouble—or maybe you won't now that you're getting out—what do you think happened? Are you free to—or do you want to—tell us in your own personal...? It's strictly up to you. I can understand why you might not want to do this, but—

MCpl Jacques Plouffe: Sir, I'll tell you what. To protect my butt, my wife is allowed to talk.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Very good.

Ms. June Cayen: You don't want to know what I think happened to the paperwork.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Sure I do. We all want to know. That why we're going around.

Ms. June Cayen: At first I thought it must have gotten shredded with the Somalia papers, because people just don't take stuff out of files. I think what happened was a case of total mismanagement. It was people who maybe misfiled the paperwork, or who didn't file it due to a shortage of staff. I have no idea where it's gone, but it's not there. We weren't even aware that it wasn't there until the warrant officer looked through the files and found that it was missing.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Is it possible that they thought your husband was just dogging it, or whatever word you want to use, and that both he and it would just go away?

Ms. June Cayen: Well, if it's not just a mistake on people's part due to lack of staff, then it's somebody trying to cover up something because he or she has made a major mistake. It was a very costly mistake for the government and for us as a private citizen as well.

I don't want to support the government and its pay raises because I have to pay more money for the move, but that's exactly what happened. I phoned the Minister of National Defence three times and asked for an appointment in his office, but I was not entitled to one. I phoned the Chief of the Defence Staff's office numerous times and asked for an appointment, but I was not entitled to one because he was too busy. I kept phoning anybody who would listen to me. I don't know who finally listened to me from among all the phone calls I made, but I got a phone call from a Colonel Leclerc in Ottawa. I don't know who he is, but he told me that the military takes care of its members and that this would be straightened out.

In turn, I phoned him back a month later to ask what was happening, and he thought his unit was taking care of it. He had already been informed that they had gone the maximum and that there was nothing else they could do. In turn, he left it. As far as I'm concerned, it's probably still sitting on somebody's desk because nobody wants to take responsibility for it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's here in Kingston, isn't it? Your husband's files would still be here?

Ms. June Cayen: I have no idea where they are, because some of them aren't here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): And the CFB Kingston powers that be have done nothing.

Ms. June Cayen: CFC went as far as they could. Captain Landry was wonderful. He did everything he could. The commandant of the school has also done everything in his power. They can't do anything else on this base.

When I phoned the base commander, I was told to use the chain of command. I said I didn't have a chain of command because I'm a civilian and can do what I want. In turn, he phoned Captain Landry and had him phone me. It seems that you go up so high and they're willing to help. If you go any higher, though, they don't want to because they don't want to get their hands dirty. So I have to tell you I am extremely angry about all this.

I have to wonder what this meeting is all about. Is it just for you to listen, or is somebody actually going to do something? We are not the only people this has happened to in the Canadian Forces. The things that have happened are ridiculous, and to be told to put up and shut up, that they're one paycheque away from welfare... They're already on welfare at $19,000. That's less!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We've heard lots of stories similar to what has happened to your husband, and I think I can speak for the entire committee: we're very concerned about how the military treats some of its personnel after they've been injured or whatever. It leaves a lot to be desired, and it's something I'm sure we will look into. We're looking into a couple of other cases, and I'm sure we'll be more than happy to look into your husband's case.

• 1455

Ms. June Cayen: No disrespect to you, sir, and I'm sure you mean every word you're saying, but it's not going to help us a whole lot when he's out in 14 days and going down from $2,400 a month to $1,000 a month when I have two kids at home. That's not going to help.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): No, I realize that.

Ms. June Cayen: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Our next witness is Martine Buczynski.

Ms. Martine Buczynski (Individual Presentation): Before I start my formal presentation, I would like to tell you two things that might explain where some of my anger and these people's anger and frustration is coming from.

In 1991 our combined family income was a little over $58,000; that is both of us working. As per our income tax form for 1997, which I have completed, it has now plummeted to a little over $37,000. That's as much as we can expect right now. That's a big difference of some $21,000.

The second thing I would like to mention is that Kingston appears to be a favourite posting. Most members wish to come here and are sorry to leave. We're such a family. We've been waiting since 1989 for the opportunity to be posted to the heart of the Bermuda Triangle, as we have nicknamed it, since it is almost the same distance from Toronto and Montreal, where both our families reside—and this is the first time we're posted near family—and Ottawa, the nation's capital. We were, however, extremely disappointed with the condition of the living quarters at CFB Kingston. It's a nice city; it's not a nice base.

While I would be able to write a book about what I think could be improved in the distribution and delivery of family support services and other quality-of-life issues—and I'm contemplating such a fact, maybe another book of “There's No Life Like It” later on—I would like to concentrate my efforts in the areas of housing and posting. Here are my thoughts.

In the area of housing, this past August our family finally took a big step, but a very satisfying one: we bought a house. I will never regret it. Since this is our fourth posting in less than eight years, this is the first chance we have had to settle down. I am very pleased with my new castle—and I call it a castle. This is what I call it, and believe me, it is compared to some of the places I have been to. Even though I no longer live in the PMQs, I wish to express my feelings and ideas so that others may not have to suffer the same living conditions in the future.

I am happy to report that since our return from Germany in 1992, this is the first winter when it is not freezing in every room. No draughts. This is the first winter I have not had to boost the thermostat to 25 to keep the house above freezing and wear long-underwear, wool socks, and slippers at all times. Last winter I could have kept the eggs, the butter, and the milk on the floor in the corner of my kitchen and they would not have gone bad. This is the first winter since 1992 when I have not had to prevent the children from playing on the floor because they would freeze there; pay astronomical heating and electrical bills; wipe the ice and condensation off the windows, walls, and ceilings; worry whether or not the children were going to get pneumonia in the night if they kicked off their covers; worry about the furnace blowing up or a fire starting in it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the PMQs all over Canada on most bases are in very, very bad shape. Let's not fool ourselves. They should be condemned, burned down. They are dangerous to live in and are under code for plumbing, wiring, insulation, and electrical systems, which are the technologies we hold dear now after these ice storms. They have not been properly maintained because the money that was set aside for that purpose year after year has been redirected to other military ventures. For years now the expression “CE” has been dirt in the mouths of PMQ residents.

• 1500

I must say I have had one exception, and I'm pleased to mention it: CFB Gagetown, in 1996. These people were prompt, polite, courteous, and very professional. I could not believe it when they returned my call after 48 hours and fixed my furnace in two weeks. I only lived there ten months, but each and every one of my concerns—with the exception of the house's insulation, which is close to impossible to fix—were attended to, while three years at CFB Chatham produced nothing.

I wish CFHA good luck, as it will be very hard to overcome the bad reputation the housing services have.

Over the course of four postings, I have lived in five PMQs. They leave much to be desired. Here are some of the areas I have identified as major problems: faulty or poor electrical wiring; insufficient and old fuse boxes are under code; grounded outlets only in kitchens. I have a daughter with special needs, and we need to have three-pronged outlets in her bedroom and in the living room. They had to be immediately installed, with much grumbling from CE Housing, as if we were imposing for the fact that I'd like to keep my daughter alive.

Regarding insulation, there is a lack or mostly an absence thereof. Hence the milk. With no basement, there is a lack of storage space. Kingston is specific in the fact that most housing here doesn't have a basement. Attics are nice, but the stairs are dangerous. And movers will not do attics, while they will do basements. We are told if it doesn't fit into your house, well, you can always pay for storage. Big deal.

Vinyl floorings are old, scratched, stained, sometimes in two colours or strips, unsanitary, especially with babies and young children. Most countertops are the same as the vinyl flooring and of insufficient space. Most kitchens in PMQs feel unhuman. I stress the word “unhuman” as in alien, as if they had been designed by a man. We all know that. No sane woman would design a kitchen like this.

There are leaky and old faucets and plumbing as well as unsanitary bath and shower facilities. I lived in Chatham and had a bath that was on a supposedly emergency change list for three years because the previous owner had four dogs and used to bathe them in there and it was all scratched from their nails. It was a wonderful thing.

There are windows that cannot open or close or even lock properly. Therefore the house is unsafe. Go and tell that to the insurance people later, that your house can't close. Combined with the poor insulation, it creates condensation and ice problems.

There are leaky roofs and basements. There is old lead paint, covered up time and time again, not to forget that the painting practice is with the cupboard doors closed, so that the paint lifts off when you open them for the first time. It's a wonderful thing. The same goes for doors and windows. And let's not forget old telephone wires, about five of them in each room. And they're not using tarps to cover floors and appliances while painting, so that there are paint marks all over the floors, on the sinks, toilets, and appliances. A five-year-old could paint a room better then these things.

Old furnaces and oil tanks are badly maintained and not functioning to capacity. Coupled with an insulation problem, it severely increases the heating costs. At CFB Chatham, we spent approximately $500 a year for oil heating, while we spent $950 in ten months of living in Gagetown.

All this is just a list of the things that stand out. This is how the government treats its employees, or rather the families of its employees, the civilians, the ones who aren't bound by the code, the ones who vote. In all of this, we've thought of many energy-saving habits, one thing I'm grateful for.

Next I would like to talk about families with handicapped spouses or dependants. It is not very easy to find a house that is suited to your needs, and half the time you cannot afford it on a corporal's salary.

In Gagetown they built us a wheelchair ramp for our daughter. It was up to code. And we were able to request a bungalow. So when it came time to move to Kingston in 1996, we automatically assumed we would get the same service. We were told that there were no bungalows. It's not true. There are only two on the base, and they are for captains only, which was stressed to me. Then I asked if we could get a ramp built. They said yes. I asked the lady at housing to fax us the floor plan of the house they were reserving for us and we would see if it would suit us. It did. We replied that we would accept the PMQ and asked if they would please put the ramp in the front of the house. She said there was no problem.

• 1505

When we arrived in Kingston, the ramp was at the back of the house. It was not finished, but we were told it would be within two weeks. It was never finished. The carpenter left pieces of wood and equipment lying about for eight weeks until my husband decided to take care of them because they were dangerous to the children. It was not up to code, it was not accessible from the walkway, and it was never used for the wheelchair. It became a patio.

When I inquired as to why it had been built in the back of the house, I was told this is where they build them in the duplexes, even though in a one and a half storey they build them in the front. Why bother asking me where I want it?

The real reason we never used it was not because it was not properly finished, but rather because when you opened the back door, you could not get in with a wheelchair, as you were blocked on your left by a large laundry tub and on the right by the inside door. Ironic, isn't it? The wheelchair, which is a mini wheelchair, could barely get through the door.

My final comment on the housing topic deals with the cost of renting a PMQ, which we are told is a rare privilege indeed. There is no standardized system. Every base deals with it differently—by square footage, rank, or a combination of both. I have many questions concerning the way the rental rates are set at CFB Kingston.

First of all, let me say that they are the worst I have ever seen. Even though our bungalow in Gagetown was without insulation, it was not that bad looking. I cried when I first walked into our PMQ in Kingston. I said, “I left a three-bedroom brick bungalow with a basement for this, and for an extra $150 a month?” It was definitely not worth it, particularly after paying the first winter's heating bill.

I was also baffled to find out that our friends in Bagotville live in a brand-new townhouse PMQ, fully equipped with carpets and microwave, and pay $100 less a month than us. When the increase in the rent was published last year—that is 1997—that PMQ at CFB Bagotville got one of the smallest rent increase rates, while CFB Kingston got the highest, which was I believe 2.8% or 3.8%. All this for brand-new windows. Well, thank you, but I believe brand-new windows...when you have vintage 1940 windows that don't lock or close, it doesn't rate a 2.8% increase. It is definitely not worth it.

Furthermore, our friends who live in CFB Ottawa in a renovated PMQ, after electricity and heat included, receive triple-A for the mere sum of approximately $500 a month. People in CFB Trenton and CFB Toronto also receive triple-A, while CFB Kingston does not. I believe the cost of living as well as buying a house is high in Kingston as it is most certainly a larger and more popular centre than the Trenton-Belleville area. Isn't it the heart of the Thousand Islands? Hence, why the triple-A?

Finally, on most bases you can get PMQ rebates for lack of insulation or some other structural problem, but at CFB Kingston no such rebates are in effect. Where is the justice and the impartiality of the system?

I sincerely hope the findings of this committee will go further than a filing cabinet or a storage box, but here is a suggestion. I do not wish you to take only my word for it. I would rather have you see it for yourselves. Here is my plan. You could form a housing committee. That committee could go to every garrison, base, and station where housing is provided. They could arrange to tour four to seven different lived-in PMQs—and I stress the lived-in portion, because I don't want you to see showpieces—in every location. Make sure you choose a variety of models: duplexes, senior officers', bungalows, town homes, singles' quarters, apartments, etc. Ask the local housing agency to contact some residents and ask them if they would be willing to let the housing committee tour their homes. I'm sure most of them would be pleased. At the same time, they would have the opportunity to make firsthand physical observations and gather real-life comments directly from the occupants.

I would further suggest that the committee tour these PMQs accompanied by an independent building inspector, an electrician, and a third specialist such as an insurance evaluator or contractor. It would be interesting to see the results of such an endeavour.

I am confident that the Canadian population at large is not aware of the living conditions military families have to suffer under. I am sure they would be as appalled as my own parents and in-laws have been when they visited us. I am only now starting to entertain because I am no longer ashamed to show non-military families the inside of my house.

• 1510

I am also certain that if we compared our living quarters with those of welfare systems in the various provinces, we would find a discrepancy in the quality of buildings offered, most assuredly not in favour of the PMQ system.

This past August, when we discovered that all we had to do was disburse an extra $150 a month to finally live in our own home, with our own back yard that nobody tramples, we took the plunge. What extra money we now spend on a mortgage is well compensated by the economies we reap in heating costs and the peace of mind and confidence we have in the safety of the structure we now live in. We have quiet neighbours. We can build, improve, add, change colours, carpets, etc., as we wish and when we choose to. Those are luxuries that I now cherish. I would rather never again have to live in a PMQ.

Those are my thoughts on PMQs. I just have a short two-pager on other things.

As I mentioned, we have gone through five PMQs and four postings from June 1989 to April 1996. I would therefore like to stay somewhere for more than two years. My daughter, who is four years old, is deaf and handicapped, and since her birth we have moved three times. The problem is that since my daughter needs physiotherapy and other special services, we have had to go back to a waiting list for services for up to three months each time we move location or province. This means my daughter has been without services for at least nine months out of four years, which has cost her dearly. She is finally catching up and making wonderful progress, but she should never have had to pay such a price. It is not easy, because you have to adapt to a new social or family service system and find out about special schools, special needs programs, etc. All this has to be done on your own. You need to determine what the resources are, and sometimes it takes a whole year to evaluate exactly what you are entitled to or what is available and get back into a routine.

This has also meant that my so-called career has been halted and my qualifications are now technologically challenged and severely out of date. I now find it extremely difficult to get back into the workforce.

In Chatham, New Brunswick, dependants looking for a job used to rent a postal box because they knew that if they put their residential addresses on their application forms, they would not be considered for a job application, as everybody knew you were a transient, which is a dirty word in the local population. It is highly frustrating to see a BA Honours, specialized, go down the drain.

My biggest complaint has to do with the fact that in all four postings we never got the proverbial three-month warning before COS date. We flew out of Germany within 28 days of receiving our posting message. We were not even given the opportunity to apply for a 30-day extension for CFAOs, because the memo was forgotten in someone's basket for 14 days before it was seen by someone in authority. I had a job there and my superior was greatly inconvenienced by my speedy departure. It is very hard to plan a move across the ocean in 21 days, since your belongings are crated seven days before your actual flight date.

The longest warning we have had from the date of receipt of a message to the actual moving day is, I believe, six weeks. This is unacceptable.

Some moves or postings are traumatic for spouses and siblings. I have to make extra trips and phone calls for my daughter. It makes it really hard.

It is a simple courtesy to give someone ample warning, to give them some time to get used to the fact...but mostly time to find out more about the area they are sent to. It is a simple courtesy and it makes everyone happy. Panic moves are hard on the member, his family, and the system. You have to run around and try to squeeze in, march in, march out, hook up services, school registration in too short a time—which gives you little time to evaluate your choices. There is a slew of long distance phone calls that leave you wanting more information.

Also, posting allowances are not adequate. Why is a single member only receiving half a month's pay? I do believe he has to pay the same fees for hook-up. Your marital status is not a factor in those kinds of transactions. They do have to give the same notice to their landlords. They also have to change curtains, window coverings, and appliances as they move. But we all know that we do not really get a full or even half a month's pay since federal income tax is first extracted from the initial amount. So you end up missing between $300 and $700 in total, depending on the salary scale.

• 1515

Why not make it one and half months to start with so that once the income tax portion is taken off, you are really left with an actual month's pay? This extra sum would greatly alleviate budgeting nightmares each posting, considering the large discrepancies in hook-up charges from province to province.

It is my belief that longer postings would be both beneficial and welcome. This would give the members and their families more time to adjust, and yes, to enjoy the area!

They would also spend less money on movers and real estate fees. While many members now buy houses, a lot of them do not invest a lot of money or put a lot of effort into their homes, except for the strictly necessary repairs, even though they have carefully looked for the appropriate and affordable home. The fact is that they still feel merely like transient people and are always reminded of it by the local population, not to mention the fact that banking and mortgage institutions are not move-friendly and that we are very likely to pay the price for an untimely posting by being penalized by that financial institution.

This concludes my presentation, and I would like to thank you for hearing me out. It is a sincere thank you, in the sense that I believed this day would never come.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Mrs. Buczynski. We certainly appreciate you being here this afternoon to share your thoughts with us.

We'll open it up for questions. Any questions, Mr. Price?

Mr. David Price: Yes, I do have a couple for Ms. Buczynski, on several different subjects, I guess.

When you're posted to different places, are your daughter's special needs taken into consideration when they look at the posting?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: They could be, but we haven't pressed the issue. There is a possibility of a compassionate posting. In Chatham, it would have been—

Mr. David Price: Aside from a compassionate posting, is it something that would show up on the file to say that because of this, the housing in that particular area or the other needs that you have—

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Is this on the 490?

Voices: Yes.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: On the 490, which is the form you submit once a year, you can write that you want the next posting considered for education, work or special medical needs for family purposes, but it's only a little sentence on there. It does not say anything about my daughter specifically; it just says that we would require, because of medical assistance—

Mr. David Price: And we certainly agree with you that the longer posting would be better for family life, for community life, for everything. That certainly comes into it.

As far as the PMQs are concerned, you're not living in them in them any more, but you certainly have some thoughts on them. I think you'd like to see some national standards for them, to start off with. That would probably go in the direction you want—

Ms. Martine Buczynski: A national standard. I understand—

Mr. David Price: —so that when you went from one place to another you'd end up knowing what to expect.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: That's one thing. I understand that there are economic regions where the market is higher or lower and I understand that prices can go up or down. However, the discrepancies are too far—

Mr. David Price: The PMQs are for military people on military bases, so they should be the same across the country.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Exactly. And I'm basically just looking for a decent living space. It's a basic fact of life.

Mr. David Price: Do you think the problem of the PMQs is management or finances?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: It's both, definitely.

Mr. David Price: Do you see it leaning more one way than the other?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: No. I think it's tied together. Management has to adhere to financial constraints and is therefore bound by this.

Let me emphasize why this is such an important problem. Members' families live in those spaces and it creates stress. Therefore it creates stress on the member. PMQ living spaces are a large part of the big morale problem that this army suffers from.

Mr. David Price: If you're not happy at home, you're not happy at work.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: It certainly helps. My husband was not happy at work for seven years. Then he switched careers and is now happy. Therefore, we are happy at home. It goes together.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: You're welcome.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Ms. Longfield.

• 1520

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Martine, we started this tour of bases in Yellowknife and then went to Esquimalt, Cold Lake, Calgary, Edmonton, and Bagotville, and on every base we have visited PMQs. I certainly understand firsthand what you're telling us. I agree with you; the nicest ones we saw were in Bagotville. We haven't seen any here, but the worst we saw were in Esquimalt, where people were sitting with water in their basements and being told, “Well, don't complain. You don't pay for your basement.”

I certainly understand. In places in Esquimalt, we were actually told that B.C. welfare wouldn't put welfare recipients in the houses that—

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Oh, I'm sure they wouldn't.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So we've seen it firsthand, and more than I care to see, I have to tell you.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Good.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think we all agree that certainly those PMQs have to be brought up to an acceptable standard and that you should know what kinds of facilities you're going to from move to move.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Or if you don't do this, then please adopt the American system, which provides the member with an allowance to make up for it.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't think you're going to get any disagreement from members.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Not everybody can afford to live in B.C. or in Toronto.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: With respect to postings—and this probably doesn't apply to you as much as to others—there are a number of cases where two members of a family are military personnel. Do you know of cases where people have been co-deployed or of cases where they haven't been, and if there's any rationale, can you understand why they were able to do it in some cases and not in others?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: I believe Sergeant Nicholson would be the person who could tell you, because his spouse is also military, and she's here. He was in Bosnia and she was posted here. She was in Ottawa, I believe. They'd be the best people to answer the question.

Sgt Philip Nicholson: Thanks, Martine.

The Department of National Defence makes an effort in most cases, but obviously, due to service requirements, sometimes there's an inability to post two members together. But I'm reasonably assured that they do make an honest effort.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So you're satisfied that the attempt is being made to try to keep...

Sgt Philip Nicholson: Yes. Bear in mind that as the number of bases gets smaller, the number of positions gets smaller. With all these constructive complaints and everything, there's a little bit of realism here that the military can only do what they can with what they've been supplied. So yes, in most cases they try their best, but there's a few that always slip through where you end up getting separated.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Martine, you didn't touch on it, but has your husband been deployed?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Do you mean in a UN posting?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: No, I've been lucky that he hasn't. I'm just slightly suspicious of the fact that it's probably because of my daughter, that his superiors were aware of the facts.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So you have some sense that they may have been more sensitive to your situation?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: They may have. I don't know. But if he has to be deployed, he'll be deployed. I will survive. I will be here for six months. To me, that's not a problem. I've learned to do without the army and I'm proud of the fact that I basically don't need them, except for the paycheque.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Which isn't nearly enough.

Has your husband been involved as a member of a rear party?

Master Corporal Chris Buczynski (Individual Presentation): I'm her husband.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Then I'll speak to you directly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Would you please come to the mike and identify yourself as well so we can get this?

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I'm her husband, Master Corporal Buczynski.

I've never used my daughter as a crutch.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm not suggesting that you have.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Okay.

My daughter is quite portable. The only problem we've had is we need a little time. I don't want to be the exception, but some members have received time and I believe a lot have not. Just to reinforce my wife's point, a little bit longer than 28 days, maybe six months' notice, would be a great idea. I don't think it's a hard concept for anyone to absorb, but I'd like to pursue that.

Rear parties are not required. My wife is very independent. And yes, I can be deployed on a UN operation with no difficulty at all; I just think we need more time. I think everyone in this room needs more time when it comes to a posting.

• 1525

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I wasn't asking the questions to pry. I wanted to try to get a cross-section of some of the concerns we've heard in other bases, and to try to broaden what we are hearing.

So I appreciate what you're saying. As I said, it was not meant to suggest that you were using your daughter as a crutch.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Oh, I understand that.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: It could have been the case, but it wasn't.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I'm looking for some glimmer of hope that there is some sensitivity at a higher level, because I don't always see it. I'm just wondering if, in your case—

MCpl Chris Buczynski: So far I can say that when I saw the crew manager the last time, she listened to what I had to say. She recorded it and was fairly in tune with my concerns. I cannot complain about her. She did an excellent job.

In the past, actually, we've had that kind of accommodation, but when the order was given to go, I went.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I've never heard anyone say they weren't going to go; it was just give them more time to get things organized.

Thank you. I appreciate both of you coming today.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: I must submit that the people here who work directly with my husband have been extremely sensitive to our overall family needs, and have asked whether we needed help—the first time somebody has—here at CFB Kingston.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So you're also saying that the treatment is not equal from base to base.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: No, it is not.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We'll go to David Price and then back to David Pratt.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

I have one comment I want to make. I think a lot of people get the idea that the committee is a group of politicians and lawyers. Well, just to let you know, we are very varied in terms of our backgrounds. As for me, this time last year I was an electrical contractor and a general contractor. I also did building inspections for real estate companies.

So when we do look at buildings, you have a varied background of people looking at things.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: I was not aware that you were touring the PMQs. This is why I put it in.

Mr. David Price: We have visited some, for sure.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Good.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You shouldn't say that; you may never get out of here.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Price: I don't want everybody to think we're, you know...

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I know.

David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: On the subject of the PMQs, we definitely heard some horror stories when we were out in Esquimalt, but clearly it gets a lot colder here in Kingston than it does in Esquimalt. Would you say your experience in terms of the temperature variations in the house was common when it comes to PMQs?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Yes, with varying degrees, the one in Kingston being the worst.

Mr. David Pratt: Were you able to record any temperatures in some of the rooms? You mentioned here that you were probably would have been able to keep the eggs and butter and milk on the floor.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Anybody who came for supper at my house had to wear slippers and wool socks or whatever. Otherwise, there was no way you could sit through a whole meal in that kitchen. We had a four-bedroom PMQ as a result of my daughter, and we made the fourth bedroom into a living room. This is where we spent our winter, not downstairs. We would go down for cooking. After the meal was cooked, I would leave the oven door open to warm up the room.

Mr. David Pratt: Did you ever think your family was being subjected to some weird winter training exercise?

Voices: Oh, oh!

Ms. Martine Buczynski: No. It was a normal day in a PMQ.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I have a couple of questions, Martine. In your comments on the posting, you said it's not easy because you have to adapt to a new social or family service system and find out about special schools. Doesn't the family resource centre help out? Don't they help you do those things?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: It's hard to do long distance. For example, when you're in New Brunswick and you're moving to Ontario, you ask, for instance, if there's a deaf school in Ontario, and where they are. They don't know.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): The family resource centre doesn't know?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Not the one in New Brunswick.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Do they look into it? Do they get back to you?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Even some people in the Kingston area probably don't know that there's a deaf school in Belleville. This is not necessarily common knowledge.

The family resource centres are very good. They gather a lot of information about hotels, restaurants, banks, police services, and where the usual things are. But I guess our family's situation is not exactly mainstream. I need special services, and this is not exactly the kind of information that floats around. Not everybody moves to another base looking for a deaf school. But our situation is special, and because of that I have made it my... I do it on my own, which is okay, because if the information is missing, I know it's my fault, and I prefer to find out firsthand how things go. I have gotten posting packages with maps and everything, and from there I go and do the digging. But there are a lot of things I cannot do until I move to the next province.

• 1530

It was the same thing when I moved to Ontario. I had to wait three months for the health cards. You get this, you get that. There are a lot of things you can't do until you have such health cards and things. Sometimes when you're on site, suddenly after being six months at the hospital somebody says oh, your daughter is such and such. Yes, I know the program over there. Why don't you go and call these people?

A lot of things just come out of the woodwork. Family resource centres could try, but if they're not aware of the exact special needs, it's hard.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Why wouldn't they be aware, if you had contacted them? Surely there are other families that have special-need youngsters. Maybe they'll not have the same needs as yours but would certainly have young people that would need that system. Why couldn't that be part of their mandate, to make sure this happens and take away a lot of the stress you go through when you make these very quick moves? To me, it would seem that this would be the thing to do. Maybe I'm wrong, but...

Ms. Martine Buczynski: I will tell you, sir, I have a PhD in moving.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): AMJ Campbell would love to get hold of you.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Let me explain to you. I can plan a move in 48 hours. I will have everything disconnected and reconnected at the other place, and if you come to my house two weeks after I have moved, you cannot tell I have moved.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Good for you. In that case, I want to ask you the question: Where do you stay for seven days after you pack everything up? You said you have to get rid of...

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Usually it's a hotel, or—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You crate it.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: —if you're lucky enough to be near family, then you go stay with family and friends.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's what you have to do. I just wondered. It seems a little—

Ms. Martine Buczynski: You just go to a hotel or motel, or whatever you're entitled to.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Hopefully, these people pick up the cost.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Of the hotel? Yes, they do, and there's a meal allowance and all that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Ms. Longfield has another question.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, I have one short question. It's something that has been alluded to several times and I never had the opportunity to ask.

On this waiting for your health card, when does the waiting period start, from the day you arrive at the new posting or the day you're lucky enough to be given advance notice that you're coming?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: I believe it's from the day you arrive. When we came back from Germany, it was from the day we registered in New Brunswick. We had to wait three months.

I remember my son had an ear infection, and we went to the hospital and had to pay for it. There was an immigrant woman beside me getting services, and I'm a Canadian citizen and I have to wait three months.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: This, to me, is just unacceptable—

Ms. Martine Buczynski: It's because we were out of the country.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —that Canadians can't get medical treatment in the country when they're serving on our behalf.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: You can. You have to pay and then claim.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, but you're just being posted or deployed, or whatever. Your out-of-pocket expenses are extraordinarily high anyway, and you have to make ends meet—

Ms. Martine Buczynski: And you're in a province you don't know, with no family, and you know nobody.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any other questions?

Thank you very much.

Ms. Martine Buczynski: You're welcome.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We appreciate it very much.

Next I'd like to call on Captain Dunfield.

• 1535

Captain Jim Dunfield (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. I'd like to thank you for providing the opportunity for me to express my concerns about how I feel the Canadian Forces is failing to provide adequate assistance for education upgrading. I feel that to resolve these issues, which I'm about to explain, will require support from the very top.

Throughout my 13-year military career, I have always considered myself very dedicated to the forces, but it is very disheartening now to have to admit to myself that the system I've put so much effort into has failed to provide the only thing I've truly really wanted in return, which was two years of funded education.

I had a college diploma before I joined the forces as an electronics technologist, and since 1987 I've been working to upgrade myself to become an engineer. Today I will share with you my experiences with these policies in the Canadian Forces that I've found to be so frustrating.

I will discuss three problem areas. The first is the education upgrading funding program called the university training plan for officers; the acronym is UTPO. The second is the change in the Royal Military College's—RMC's—policy with regard to tuition and books. The third is the CF reimbursement policy, which provides reimbursement for tuition and books. In turn, I will explain the policy and the problems with regard to each of these, but first I would like to provide a little bit of background as to the importance of why this is so important today.

I was especially offended by the lack of support of educational upgrading in light of the report on leadership and management in the Canadian Forces that the Minister of Defence submitted to the Prime Minister only last March. A copy is provided for you in your portfolio. The study was commissioned after the Somalia inquiry and concluded that changes are required to improve the quality of leadership in the Canadian Forces.

In the leadership section of that report, one of the main points emphasizes the need for virtually all officers to have an undergraduate degree. This is a very profound statement with many repercussions, and it has clearly set a precedent for the officers currently within the Canadian Forces.

The importance of the education of the officer corps was also reiterated by a series of studies on the officer professional development periods, which was conducted by the Canadian Forces Staff College in Toronto. They also concluded that the percentage of officers with undergraduate and postgraduate degrees should be much higher, and it cited the UTPO program as a key tool to be utilized towards this achievement.

One of the main programs for education upgrading is the university training plan for officers. It is a DND-sponsored, subsidized plan open to commissioned officers serving in the CF who are within two years of completing a baccalaureate degree. As per CFAO, Canadian Forces Administration Order, 9-40—and you have a copy in French and English in your portfolio—“The purpose of the UTPO is to increase the number of officers in the Regular Force with university degrees by enabling deserving officers to obtain degrees while serving.”

I consider that the UTPO program is a very significant, if not the premier, program within the forces to earn a degree. I recognize there are other methods, including the significant work that has been done by the Office of Continuing Education at RMC, but I believe the true value of a degree earned completely through part-time study is not the same as a degree earned through full-time study, where the subject material is usually much more applicable to the member's employment area; for example, computer engineering for an officer whose classification is communications and electronics engineering. As well, several degree programs are tightly regulated, like engineering, and at least part of the program must be completed through full-time study to be properly accredited.

In the previous two years I believe the number of UTPO positions has been limited to ten funded positions. I've always considered this to be far too small a number. I have personally known of many individuals who have tried repeatedly without success and given up. One individual I know applied eight times without success and another five times. The second individual chose to then pursue his own education via leave without pay.

• 1540

The UTPO competition has always been extremely severe. Over time I have come to recognize that it is far easier to win a postgraduate funded position than an undergraduate position, i.e. the UTPO program.

In the 1997 competition year there were no fewer than 50 postgrad funded positions, yet there were only 10 undergrad or UTPO positions, to be competed for among all the officers in the Canadian Forces.

With the new policy announced by the Minister of Defence last March that all officers should have a degree, it should have been no surprise that the number of applicants for this year's UTPO competition would have increased, and in fact it did; it doubled. For the last two years there were about 57 applicants and this year it increased to 110. Yet the number of funded positions stayed exactly the same at 10, unchanged.

I do not find this acceptable. If the CF is not prepared to put the necessary tools in place to support the policy, then the policy should be rescinded or the statement rescinded, or it should not have been set out in the first place.

Finally on this issue, I wish to address my personal frustration in my experiences with the system, as it may add a small note of reality to the severity of the circumstances of an individual involved.

In 1987 I became aware of the UTPO program and at that point decided I wanted to upgrade myself to become an engineer. Initially I thought it would only take about two years before I could commence full-time study through the UTPO program at RMC. This has been maintained as my primary goal in my personal career since then, but now it's been 11 years.

I've completed 10 engineering-level courses on my own through universities across Canada, for the most part taking one course a year. To date I've applied four times, without success, to the UTPO program.

I consider now, though, that I have sacrificed too much time and energy to give up on this goal, and even if it means taking leave without pay, I must do it, although this is a drastic route, considering I have a family, a house, and a daughter who herself will be commencing university next year.

Throughout the years I have tried to better understand the requirements of the UTPO program. It is very disheartening, though, having worked towards this goal for 11 years and having completed 10 courses on my own. Essentially I feel I have completed all of the requirements necessary to do well in the program. I've had strong evaluations and I've completed all my military development exams, which are encouraged. That also is complete. I had strong letters of recommendation from a brigadier-general in my branch, the dean of engineering at RMC, and a past commanding officer.

After all this I was still told, “Sorry, it's just not good enough. Please try again next year.” For several reasons, I feel I can no longer wait another year.

Mine is only one unfortunate story. I know there are many others who have similar situations.

My recommendation for this aspect is simply to increase the number of funded UTPO positions for this program.

Having been unsuccessful in the UTPO program, I began planning and further investing all aspects of taking leave without pay. This was especially important for purposes of financial planning, as I will be without pay for 14 months.

To my surprise, when I investigated the policy at RMC, I found they had changed the policy in regard to tuition and books. Where it used to be free for members of the forces to attend RMC, they now must pay tuition and they can no longer utilize the books that are used by the full-time students. They must find their own books and purchase their own books. I estimate this will cost more than $3,000 a year for me, at a time when I already will be going through financial hardships and when I thought the CF was encouraging all officers to pursue a degree.

I believe this change at RMC occurred with the introduction of the continuing studies department. For those students taking courses at the continuing studies department, I suspect it's probably not a large problem, being that they can for the most part be reimbursed for tuition and and the cost of books, at least in part.

• 1545

So when I investigated that, I was led to my third frustration when I discovered that members who are on leave without pay are not eligible for that reimbursement. This is very ironic, I find, because if you read the quote from CFAO9-2—again, you have a copy—the aim of the CFAO is:

To provide financial benefits to members who desire to improve their education for their own benefit or with the goal of applying that education for a subsidized training plan offered by the CF such as ETPNCN, the UTPO and post-grad. This program has the view of improving the academic standards of the Canadian Forces members for the overall aim of improving its operations and management.

Furthermore, if a member is so determined to continue his education via leave without pay and thus sacrifice tens of thousands of dollars, then the least, I would think, that the Canadian forces should do is try to support that member in whatever way possible.

The expense of assisting in the cost of tuition and books, amounting to a few thousand dollars, is an outstanding bargain, I would think, for the Canadian forces, who will reap the benefits of having better educated members.

My recommendation here is that RMC should not be charging for tuition and books for students who are attending while on leave without pay. And equally or more importantly, all personnel on leave without pay should be eligible for reimbursement under CFAO 9-2.

This reimbursement under CFAO 9-2 also has far-reaching benefits for members of the forces at all ranks, including NCMs who may wish to take leave without pay to earn a degree or to complete a portion of a college program in order to qualify in administration or to be certified as a full technician or a technologist or a nurse, for example.

In conclusion, the CF has always encouraged members to upgrade their education. However, the emphasis has been significantly increased because of the report on leadership and management in the Canadian forces. With this new emphasis, I feel that the support and services for those in the CF wishing to upgrade their education should be improved. Yet in my experience, I have run up against no less than three policies or areas which directly discourage and in a sense hinder the educational upgrading of individuals.

My recommendation is that there are three changes required. They are: number one, increase the number of funded UTPO positions significantly; number two, RMC should not be charging tuition and books for students attending while on leave without pay; and number three, all personnel on leave without pay should be eligible for reimbursement under CFAO 9-2.

That concludes my formal presentation. I thank you for your attention. I'm now ready to receive your questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Captain Dunfield.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you for bringing that to our attention, by the way. I believe this is the first time we've had a presentation of this nature since we started these hearings in the last part of January. We appreciate you taking the time to bring this to our attention.

Any questions? David Price.

Mr. David Price: How long have you been in the military?

Capt Jim Dunfield: Since 1984. That's 13 years.

Mr. David Price: And if you did complete your degree, you're planning on staying in... I should say if you did it through the—

Capt Jim Dunfield: The UTPO program?

Mr. David Price: Yes.

Capt Jim Dunfield: Yes. There is an obligation of serving two months for every month of training.

Mr. David Price: Okay. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: Did you ever get any official explanation for why there were so few positions?

Capt Jim Dunfield: This year I have been doing as much investigating as I could. At one point, I was led to believe by quite an authoritative person that they were going to double the number of positions for this year because of the report from the minister, but that changed before the board actually sat, just before the board sat. I'm not sure, but I believe it was because of funding restrictions.

• 1550

This is why I say we need support from the top to support a policy for education upgrading. Even though the people who manage these programs wish to do better, they cannot do that unless they have the financial backing.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that perhaps our research staff would want to look into further. I think there is room for it, especially with the emphasis the government placed on education in the last federal budget, with the millennium scholarship fund and all that. We seem to be casting our eyes beyond our own personnel in terms of the Canadian Forces, and I think that if we are going to emphasize education, it should be very clearly for some of our own personnel.

Tell me, do you know of anyone—you or anyone else—who is going to be looking at these UTPO positions? One of the provisions in the last budget was using RRSP contributions. Some of the people we heard from over the course of the last month or so in other locations laughed at us: “Ha! What RRSP contributions?” Is that something that's considered an option by officers, at least?

Capt Jim Dunfield: That policy from the last budget is something that's available to anybody, and I don't consider it necessarily a part of the Canadian Forces.

Mr. David Pratt: No, I realize that.

Capt Jim Dunfield: But I could do that. If I had money in RRSPs, I'd be the first one to say yes, I'd borrow some of my money back for the purpose of education. But that's not where my focus has been in the past, so I can't use that.

I've also been looking to see if there is some other aid that I could find from the CF to assist me in doing this, but I haven't found anything yet. I'm not blaming the forces for that, though. I rest at my three proposals.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you for bringing this to light, because as the chair said, we haven't heard this before in the hearings and it's clearly important from the standpoint of the knowledge-based economy that we are into and that certainly lies ahead of us.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Mrs. Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you, Captain Dunfield. As has been said, this is the first time we have heard of this particular situation.

I am...well, “outraged” is perhaps too strong a word, but I'm certainly very concerned that while we are suggesting broad policy change that has an effect on all of you who are in this position, we are not backing it up with dollars to see that the policy we are actually trying to put in place is not available to people who want to comply and to actually do it. I think your three proposals are certainly ones that I will recommend be included in our recommendations to the minister. I think they are fair and reasonable. I think the cost involved will be regained, as you said, in productivity and better performance.

As for the whole nature of taking money out of your RRSPs, we know all too well that you don't have that kind of disposable income to build up those kinds of reserves. I think it would not be prudent of us to say that's the only way you can do it. I think there needs to be additional support for you. I don't think there's anyone sitting here who won't fight for that.

I really didn't have a question, just a comment.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Captain, how long do you have to go before you get your degree?

Capt Jim Dunfield: I require two years of full-time study. If I were to do these last two years part-time, it would take an additional 14 years.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): The other thing I have to ask you is this. You said you have completed 10 engineering-level courses at universities across Canada. I don't know if this pertains to engineering or not, but in a lot of cases the rules change from province to province. In an engineering case, do you have to worry about that?

Capt Jim Dunfield: I don't believe so. I'm not sure whether the regulating board is provincially based or federally based.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You know what I'm getting at, right?

Capt Jim Dunfield: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Licensing. Okay.

• 1555

Thank you very much for this, by the way. As I said, we really appreciate it. We've never had a presentation of this nature before, so thank you.

Capt Jim Dunfield: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We've been sitting here for about two hours. I notice people walking at the back with coffee, so I'd like to take a 10 or 15-minute break. When we come back, we'll have presentations from the floor.

• 1555

• 1612

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We're ready to restart. The next presentation from the floor is by Corporal Paul Stemmler.

Corporal Paul Stemmler (Individual Presentation): Gentlemen, I have been a military policeman with the CF for the last fifteen years, and there are a couple of problems I have noticed in the military.

One problem is posting grants when you are being posted from one location to another. Posting grants should be based on family size, not a member's rank or pay. For a family of four, someone with the rank of corporal would receive a lot less than a major or a colonel posted to the same location, even though we have the same expenses involved during the move.

Another problem is that homeowners are not able to shop for the best rates in interest. The longer the period of time, the lower the rate of interest you can get. However, if we're posted within the timeframe, we don't get reimbursed for either the benefits we would normally be entitled to or for the penalties the banks charge us.

Another problem is equipment. It is a shame that members of the CF cannot get the equipment that is required. Upon my posting here from an embassy, I had to wait over a year and a half for such a simple thing as a blue beret. I had to wait for someone to get out of the military to get an open holster, because I was wearing an old-style holster. I have now waited four years for combat lenses. The supplier went bankrupt two years ago and the military still hasn't been able to find an alternative supplier.

To me, to compare CF members to their public service counterparts is insane. The public service counterpart is not required to drop his life on a moment's notice. He's not required to go to a war zone and face live ammunition, respond to civil emergencies like the ice storm of '98 or the mud slides and floods in Manitoba and Quebec while his family suffers at home, alone in the dark.

I was aware that these things were part of my duties when I enlisted in the military. However, when members of the RCMP and other civilian police agencies respond to such emergencies and UN duties, they are paid much better than we are on average, and they have better accommodations and working conditions. With all the downsizing over the past several years, and with the delegation of authority, more responsibility has been placed on NCMs, but as NCMs we have received no compensation for this. Why not the CF? Are we second-class citizens compared to everybody else?

• 1615

My last point is that NCMs require a union or association to speak for them to the Treasury Board on, i.e, pay and working conditions. In my opinion, our officers in Ottawa don't speak out fairly on our behalf. They are not in touch with our needs or concerns.

I would suggest that a survey through a third impartial party be conducted and the results acted upon. A union would not affect my loyalty to the CF or Canada, or make me neglect or forget my duty, but it would look out for my rights and make sure I'm not trampled upon.

As this committee goes to different locations across Canada, you're going to hear a lot of different things. I'm hoping you can make the government pay attention and see some of the problems happening in the military.

Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you.

Questions? David Price.

Mr. David Price: You were saying the officers don't speak for the NCMs. I guess that's one of the reasons why this committee is travelling, to really hear directly from you. Be sure that we are taking all this information very to heart. We're taking it down. Something is going to be done with it. It's not going to be a shelving unit.

I had just one question: combat lenses.

Cpl Paul Stemmler: They're glasses that fit right over your eyes. They're almost like divers' goggles.

Mr. David Price: Would regular police have those?

Cpl Paul Stemmler: No, they're more for when you're going out in the field for training, things like that. I'm not aware that civilian police wear this type of kit.

However, I'm very nearsighted. If I take my glasses off, I can't see anybody at this board.

Mr. David Price: Unfortunately, I can understand that very well. I know how important it is to have glasses, just for a simple thing like going skiing. A lot of times others don't understand how important it is, how you're really stuck out in left field if you don't have them.

But this is an item that has been used?

Cpl Paul Stemmler: To my understanding, a lot of people have had them. This is my first posting to an LFCA posting, and this is when I requested it. I've been here four years. The suppliers went bankrupt, so I'm waiting for a friend of mine to retire from the service. He's going to give me his frames, and then I can get the lenses.

Mr. David Price: That's incredible.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Can I ask some questions?

I'll tell you, Corporal, I got into a big shouting match with General Addy the other day about the same thing. I couldn't believe the answers I was getting. I can't believe you can't get combat lenses and you couldn't get a blue beret, was it?

Cpl Paul Stemmler: I have a blue beret. I waited a year and a half for it. It was the same thing in the military police. We used to have closed and open holsters. I had to wait until someone actually got out, a year after I was here, before I was able to get an open holster.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I can't understand that. We're not talking about a lot of money here, are we?

Cpl Paul Stemmler: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Surely your officer, or your commanding officer, has some discretionary powers about spending money.

Cpl Paul Stemmler: My bosses tried their best to get the stuff through the supply system. I ended up even asking people on other bases to send me a blue beret. I ended up having to be given one from somebody else who was getting out for awhile, just until I got one issued to me about a year ago.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I can't understand it. I mean, I'm a civilian guy, but I just can't understand why somebody wouldn't buy these things. Surely the money is available, and surely your commanding officer or your general has that discretionary power. There are moneys available to do other things. Why not first outfit your personnel to the best of your ability?

I think that's one of the reasons why we're sitting here. Somewhere along the line the Canadian Armed Forces people, the head honchos, or whatever you want to call them, the generals, have forgotten about the people who serve.

Cpl Paul Stemmler: My direct supervisors tried to get me this equipment. It was almost impossible to get it anywhere.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Sorry about that, guys. I guess that's just one of my pet peeves.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Go right ahead. I feel the same way.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I rant and rave about this because I can't believe it.

Cpl Paul Stemmler: They issued bulletproof vests to our section a couple of years ago, and it ended up there weren't enough to go around. We ended up doing what they call “hop-swapping”. If someone is coming off shift, he gives me his vest, I pop it on, and then I go out on the road. This is the type of situation we have because of our funding.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): According to the good general, who's now retired, if he had to do it over again he would change his... Well, it's easy for him to say now that he's not there.

• 1620

I'm getting off the subject a bit, but we were talking about some white vests or jackets that were needed, I guess maybe in Somalia or Bosnia, and he was saying he couldn't get them. Well, it probably cost $35,000 to outfit the whole lot. He certainly could have had that direction. Why don't they just walk in and say, listen, I need these for my people? I don't understand all that.

Cpl Paul Stemmler: I don't understand either. That's why we have the problem.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's right.

Cpl Paul Stemmler: The bean counters are taking over.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Are there any other questions?

Ms. Martine Buczynski: Are you aware, sir, that everybody here on base who had Gortex equipment had to bring it back because they didn't have enough for Bosnia?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, I know.

Changing the subject a bit, you were talking about maybe a union, and we heard earlier this afternoon about an alliance. If DND, the Canadian Forces, appointed an ombudsman, do you think that would help?

Cpl Paul Stemmler: We have one now, and it hasn't made any improvement. I've seen where in the wintertime some of the buildings are so cold that at certain temperatures civilian employees are allowed to go home, but the military stay working.

The office I worked in, the building is a World War II H-hut, and the conditions were such that we were all wearing winter parkas most of the time inside our building while we were working, because we couldn't get the heat up. Our bosses had to go out and buy electric heaters for every office, just to keep our building warm.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's here in Kingston?

Cpl Paul Stemmler: That's here on this base. To be just sitting there, I'd prefer driving out in the patrol car, because at least there I had guaranteed heat.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Unbelievable.

Thank you very much.

Next is Master Corporal Brian Wilson.

Master Corporal Brian Wilson (Individual Presentation): You will have to forgive me; I don't have anything prepared right now.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Sometimes that's the best.

MCpl Brian Wilson: Regarding something Mrs. Longfield brought up, you were talking about spouses who are posted in one area because they're military and the husband is in the other. There's also a problem you should be aware of: spouses having to work somewhere, who are not military, and the husband is in the military and is being posted around. I'm in that situation right now, where my wife is in Ottawa, just to keep her career going, and I'm here.

I've been posted five times in the past six years, and she has had to move from place to place. We finally got here. She couldn't find any work, and she had to go on unemployment. Then she was offered something in Ottawa. I then went to my career manager and said “Listen, I've never complained about a posting. I've taken it. My family has taken it. I would like to be posted back to Ottawa.” It's the first time I've ever asked for anything, and I was told: “Sorry, we can't do it. That's the end of it right there.”

So that's something you should look into as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Do you have a question, Judi?

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Did they give you a reason? Is it just that they don't want to deal with it?

MCpl Brian Wilson: Money.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Money.

MCpl Brian Wilson: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So it costs too much, and we're not even going to think of it.

MCpl Brian Wilson: That's right.

The other thing is, right now I'm being treated for some medical problems that were mismanaged earlier in my career. Right now, being a single father, because I have two kids, looking after the house, commuting back and forth to Ottawa to see my wife, or her commuting here, it's very expensive, to begin with, and none of this was taken into consideration.

I've had 12 years in the military. I've served it well. I have no bad records or anything. I asked for one thing, and this is what I get. I know it sounds like a personal problem, but it's happening to other people as well.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Well, I also think your productivity level would have dropped somewhat. I mean, you can't have your mind 100% on the job when you know you have to get into the car and visit your wife, go back and forth, or be doing all those other things. To me, it only seems that it would be cost-effective to make certain you have the best living conditions we can provide, and the cost of the move would be more than offset by your increased productivity.

MCpl Brian Wilson: It does hurt the forces in the long run, because, for one thing, since 1994 I'm sure the army has paid almost $500,000 in training me in different languages and in computer skills. Last Friday I was at a job interview for a civilian company in Ottawa, and that's what the army is going to find happening.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Let me guess: at considerably higher remuneration.

MCpl Brian Wilson: Actually they never talked about it, but they were asking for a university degree in the job description, so I imagine they're paying quite a bit.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Thank you. I'm glad you raised that publicly.

MCpl Brian Wilson: There's one other thing, if I could, before I sit down.

In regard to the combat glasses, if you wear glasses, you cannot put a gas mask over your face unless you have the proper glasses.

Thank you.

• 1625

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you. We appreciate it.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next is Sergeant Christian Pedersen.

Corporal Dawn Pedersen (Individual Presentation): Sergeant Pedersen is not here. I am his wife, Corporal Dawn Pedersen. If I may, I will speak about the problem on his behalf. Is that okay?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Of course.

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: I am bringing your attention to a serious flaw within the military medical system. This situation has been some two years in the running. It starts first with my husband being posted here on this base and being sent to Bosnia. Prior to being sent to Bosnia, there was some specialized equipment for which he had to take equipment training. He had to take pre-deployment training and he had to take his normal field duty, so in that year prior to him going, I saw him for about three weeks.

That's not a problem. I am a military wife, I am military myself, and I don't have a problem with that. This is just to give you the background of what it was like prior to him going.

The problems started once he hit Bosnia. First of all, because of all this pre-deployment training and what have you, he did not have enough time to properly get his affairs in order. My first problem was at the bank when I went to try to do business for both of us. They would not accept the power of attorney because he had not presented it in person. Of course he couldn't, because he was elsewhere doing all this other training.

I am not a shy person, so I made the man see my point of view and that was handled.

A voice: Good for you.

Voices: Hear, hear.

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: Thank you.

Then the problems really started. My husband was hospitalized several days before I was finally told. I was only told when he was emergency medivacked to the German field hospital. At that time the Canadian military person told me that he was being medivacked. They then got no more information from their people back there.

As a matter of fact, the only contact I had with my husband happened when he could beg, borrow or steal a cellular phone and call me long distance at home. As a matter of fact, I was telling his sergeant-major what the status of my husband was. No information was being sent back to my husband's hierarchy. Nothing was getting to me except what my husband could manage to tell me.

When they finally did finish and say there was nothing more they could do with him... And I have to credit the German field hospital, because they had the orthopedic surgeon who worked on Helmut Kohl look at my husband. They told him what was wrong and gave him his information and tests, wrote a referral and said he was going to have to be medivacked home.

Again, my husband's sergeant-major found out my husband was being medivacked home when I told him. I found out what flight my husband was coming in on by calling AMU Trenton myself and saying that I thought he was coming in that day and asking if they had somebody. The man said they had one flight coming in that day from that area and he thought there was an evacuee on it.

On the hunch it might be my husband, I then drove the two hours to be waiting for him, and it broke my heart when I saw him get off that plane. He couldn't walk without the aid of crutches. He had a packet of painkillers that the Germans had given him and he held on to those. He was then brought over to the hospital at Trenton and given the choice of either being driven home for the two hours sitting in a car with me or waiting until they could ambulance him in the next day. It was his choice. He wanted to come home with me. I don't fault Trenton for that.

Then he got back here and that's when the nightmare really began. My husband had three discs blown in his back. He came back here with an orthopedic surgeon's referral and recommendations. We don't have orthopedic specialists within the forces on staff any more. We have consultants.

• 1630

I don't fault Kingston, in that they did send him to an orthopedic consultant. They acted in good faith. However, when you have a consultant the cheapest is not necessarily best. This man saw my husband's X-rays. There were three done. The man saw one and looked no further. It was the least damaged, the one that looked like, with rest, it would heal on its own. The consultant went no further. So for three months, while this man kept saying rest will do it, rest will do it, my husband was on the flat of his back eating painkillers like they were Smarties.

Are you aware that the only painkillers the military can now give you are Tylenol with codeine? It is the strongest thing. That is what my husband survived on for three months with three blown discs.

He asked the doctors here on the base for help...and this is something called “captive patient syndrome”. All they said was that they had given him a consultant, he had to follow what the consultant said. I won't give you this consultant's name because I might get a defamation of character suit, but as far as I'm concerned, I could have done a better job, and I don't have a medical degree.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I think somebody else has already given us his name.

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: No, sir, this is another one.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): This is another one?

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: Yes, sir. As a matter of fact we finally got something done when I personally took over.

I forgot the bit about the painkillers. For my husband to get the painkillers from the MIR here—we live out in the township—he had to endure a 20-minute to 30-minute drive in, he had to sit at sick parade for another couple of hours to get the painkillers and then he had to endure another ride back. That was the only way they would give him those things.

Granted, they didn't question when he was going through a hundred of them a week, or whatever it was—some incredible amount. They just gave them to him, no questions asked, provided he showed up and waited for them.

We finally had help when I took time off work, drove him to this particular doctor's consulting room and told the man to do something, I wasn't taking him home. Meanwhile, while the man was trying to figure out his holiday schedule he had left my husband standing in his diagnosis room because my husband couldn't sit in the low chair and he couldn't get up on the examination table and lie down himself. I had to go in and do that.

As far as I'm concerned, the treatment my husband received was cruel. You wouldn't treat a dog that way. You'd have shot him by that time. We were incredibly lucky that this doctor was going on holidays and he had a locum fill in for him. That doctor was good and he actually came right out and told us that the first orthopedic surgeon in this town didn't even see the other two destroyed discs.

This is just to let you know what it's like when you are hurt serving your country in an operational setting.

I was just reminded about something else. My husband had the operation. During that three months I had to leave and go back and forth to work. I used up all of my annual leave to take care of my husband, and at that point I had to go back to work.

My husband then had his operation, and two days after the operation—because of the cutbacks in the hospitals, they don't let you stay there very long—he was sent home. There wasn't any home care because we're not members of Ontario; we have the military. The military didn't give my husband home care because he had a wife.

• 1635

The wife looked after him. And for my pains, on a quarterly which goes on my personal evaluation for that year, I received the following sentence: “Corporal Pedersen must rethink her priorities.” I had taken too much time off work.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Just stay there, Corporal, because I'm sure the panel would like to ask you some questions.

Have you any questions?

Mr. David Price: No, everything is quite clear. Mr. Chair, I'm speechless.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, so am I.

How is your husband's health today, if I may just ask?

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: He's actually quite well now that they finally did the operation. He still has pain. He will have pain for the rest of his life, but it is not unmanageable and he now has mobility. He's just been taken off his medical category, as a matter of fact, and he is now back to full duty.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Do you have any idea how all that happened? You must have some thoughts about what happened. He was in Bosnia, wasn't he?

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: Yes, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): What happened there? We hear some of those stories, and we've certainly heard some in Edmonton and other spots we've been to. It completely baffles us how all that happens, because you get the impression from an outside point of view that the military are a closed community, they take care of themselves. When you join up, part of the thought process is that you're going to be taken care of. Obviously this doesn't happen in a lot of cases.

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: Sir, that used to be the case. When we had adequate people and adequate funds we were able to take care of ourselves. When you start making cutbacks and you cut back everything and anything, then you're going to go to consultants. A consultant doesn't give a care.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You can swear if you want. I don't have a problem with that.

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: He's getting his money anyway, regardless of the level of service he gives you. We're the goose that laid the golden egg, because they answer to no one now. That's the first part of the problem.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): It was also a communications problem, obviously, over in Bosnia, where you didn't know what was going on...and back and forth.

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: Sir, I wouldn't like to be incredibly controversial, but there is a portion I haven't mentioned. My husband is an anglophone. He was serving with a unit from Valcartier. Part of the problem was once he went into the German hospital, there's a system in place for them to get the patients there, but obviously there's not a really well-developed system to get information back to the unit so it can let the people over here know what's going on.

When I said my husband begged, borrowed, or stole a cellular phone... Attached to the hospital was a Canadian welfare officer who was supposed to look after the people. Chris would cajole him into letting him make a long-distance call, and it was a civilian cell phone. The only information this side of the water had was what I provided them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): When you're flying home, is there not a list of people who are on that plane? Surely the people in Trenton would know if your husband is on that plane. Do they have a passenger list of who's coming and who's going?

Cpl Dawn Pedersen: No, sir, it was not a passenger flight. It was a cargo flight. My husband was brought home as you would bring home a pallet of fruit. He was on a cargo flight. They did manage to put a stretcher up for him so he could lie down during the flight. The only reason the fellow in Trenton knew this was because he knew the nurse who was flown over on that flight to bring him back. There was no manifest with my husband's name on it, and nobody on this side of the water knew he was coming. The only reason I was there was that, as I said, I'm not shy. I'm a bit tenacious, and I called long-distance myself to find out from Trenton.

• 1640

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Good for you.

David Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt: How did your husband sustain the injury over in Bosnia?

Cpl Dawn Pederson: We don't know, sir. Basically, he woke up with a cramp in his butt that got exceedingly worse.

Mr. David Pratt: The other question I have is, in terms of this experience with this consultant, did you consider, because of your husband's pain and suffering, a lawsuit? Did you talk to anybody in the military about the possibility of suing, or having this fellow removed?

Cpl Dawn Pederson: It is my understanding, sir, that as a member of the military I cannot initiate any type of lawsuit that may bring the military into bad light.

Mr. David Pratt: That's a right you forfeit as a member of the Canadian Forces.

Cpl Dawn Pederson: It's an understood right. I could possibly do it, but that's the other part about my husband: he's too loyal to allow me to, and he wouldn't do it himself, in spite of everything.

Mr. David Pratt: Are you aware of whether or not this consultant is still operating with the...?

Cpl Dawn Pederson: I believe he is, sir. However, if I hear of anybody with a back problem, I tell them the person's name and tell them to avoid him, if at all possible.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Any other questions?

Thank you very much, Corporal, for coming forward on behalf of your husband.

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Master Corporal Lawrence Tierney.

Master Corporal Lawrence Tierney (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon.

I would like to place a question to the committee. I've been in the service for 18 and a half years. During that period of time, for the sake of votes I've seen you strip away needed equipment. For the sake of money I've seen you strip away members' dignities as they are forced to food banks and to welfare. In response, we get committees.

I place this question to you: Why should we trust you any more? You have lost that trust. You ask for loyalty. We give it. This is what we get in return. How can we be loyal to you any more?

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That's a very legitimate question. I'll try to answer it, and if any of my colleagues want to add anything later, they can do so.

I think you're absolutely right. I've been elected since 1988, so I haven't always been on this committee, but I've been on this committee for a couple of years now. I can only tell you how I feel about it.

I feel we are going to make a difference or I wouldn't be sitting here. I wouldn't want to waste my time doing this, I'll tell you that, if we're not going to get some results.

I think a couple of things maybe make this committee a little bit different from the others. One—and I certainly can't speak on behalf of the opposition party, but I can speak, I think, on behalf of some of my Liberal colleagues—is that it's safe to say that everybody on this committee, regardless of how they feel politically, wants to do something. They want to see something happen.

I don't know if that was there last time, because I wasn't there, but I know this time, even when we're not at committee hearings, even when we're travelling, we all seem to be singing off the same song sheet, that we want something to happen.

As well, because of what has happened maybe in the last year, I think the general public wants things to happen for the military. I think that's been brought on by a number of things that have happened, most recently the ice storm, but also Manitoba, and maybe a couple of other incidents I can't think of at the moment, such as the flood in Quebec. It is also the well-being related to how we've handled ourselves on various fronts in Europe.

• 1645

So I think there is a general consensus that things are going to happen. If they weren't, I'll tell you right now, I wouldn't be sitting here. I've had an opportunity to do other things, but I wanted to stay here.

We started this before the election, and it was obviously stopped because of the election. But when we came back, the same mandate was put to us. I think there is a general consensus that the minister certainly wants to do something. I have talked to him on a number of occasions, as a lot of us have. I think there is a general consensus.

I can understand your apprehension. I can understand where you are coming from. I take your comments very seriously, and I hope we don't disappoint you. I am sure we are not going to disappoint you—I don't intend to—but I cannot make a promise on that. But I can—

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: That's the simple point, sir. All you are doing is putting forward recommendations that will either get shelved, cast aside, or disregarded.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): This won't get shelved. There are too many people here who want to see this happen. This report will not get shelved; I can give you that commitment.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: Seeing is believing.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, it is. You have every right—

Voices: Hear, hear.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): —to say that. I don't have a problem with your skepticism at all. But I can tell you that it won't get shelved.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: I most certainly hope so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Just a second. I think David from the Conservative Party would like to make a statement.

Mr. David Price: Yes, I will speak for the Conservative Party, but I think I can even speak for the other members of the opposition.

With respect to the committee as a whole, you are not seeing any arguments back and forth among the committee members. We are really working here in a strictly non-partisan manner. I think we all feel the same thing. We weren't aware of this.

Unlike Bob, I am new here as of June 2, so this is quite new to me. I had heard some rumblings before, however, from people in my area involved in the military. They said that things weren't going that well.

For me it is fascinating to get out, actually hear this, and see people like yourself standing before us. It's so different from if you were to come to Ottawa and stand before the committee in a very formal way. This is informal. This is what we wanted, so we really and truly hear what is going on. I can tell you quite truthfully that it affects all of us. We are not just sitting here listening; we are taking it in. It will not stop here.

This is not something that is going to be shelved. It can't be.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: Unfortunately we are seeing from our government that there are basically three words that set the standard for the military: duty, loyalty, and honour. These are not just words to us; these are our life.

What we see from the government is the exact opposite. We are used as your whipping dog. Any time there is a budget cut, we have no voice. Therefore, we are an easy target. Who suffers? Not the operations, but the families.

Mr. David Price: That's right, and that has to stop. I think we all agree with that. Unfortunately we don't move very fast. You are still going to have to be a bit patient as far as time goes, but we are going to make this as fast as we possibly can.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: I think you'll find, sir, that the patience has worn very thin.

Mr. David Price: I know it has. I agree with you there, but...

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I just have something to say briefly. I was elected on June 2, as well.

Sir, you have a voice. You have a voice when every member of this committee is speaking openly and actively, not only within our caucus, but publicly out in the media. Every time I have an opportunity to bring the concerns of the Canadian military personnel to the public, I do so.

I have been interviewed by the Edmonton paper, the Ottawa papers, and my own local papers. I have run cable programs since the day I started in Yellowknife, trying to bring the concerns to my constituents, because I come from an area that doesn't have a military presence, and it is an education process.

It is all part of trying to build up the public support so that when I stand in the House of Commons and others stand in the House of Commons and speak out against further cuts to the military, we have the support of the people who elect us at home.

So we are doing that. I am spending an inordinate amount of time on this. It has no direct benefit to my constituents, but I think it has a benefit to Canada. I am prepared to put my reputation, my career, on the line to continue to fight for what I know has to be done.

• 1650

I think you're going to find this from every member who is sitting on the committee. David and I have talked, other members of the Liberal caucus have talked, and I'm sure they have also done so in the other caucuses.

We feel it is incumbent upon ourselves to convince and to spread this word among those members of our caucus who aren't out here hearing this firsthand. We are doing it, and we will continue to do it. Whether we get the desired results to the extent that you wish, I don't know, but we're certainly going to make every effort to see that we—

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: We've seen some of the results that have been achieved. Your little cost-of-living increase, which most of us deemed an insult...

Mrs. Judi Longfield: With all due respect, sir—

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: I'm not that—

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —that was in place—

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: Yes, I understand, but this is government in general.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: And I appreciate that, and I'm not here as an apologist for government.

All I can say is that we're here because we think it's important. We hear what you're saying. We don't disregard what you're saying. We know the concerns are serious, and we are going to table a report to the minister. It's going to be tabled in the House of Commons. We want him to respond to it, and each of us on a daily basis will be reminding him that he needs to respond to it.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: The point is that maybe the minister should come out here. Maybe he should live in our Qs, live on our wages.

Voices: Hear, hear!

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: It's very easy—I saw him on the Rideau—to say, well, we'll take care of him. We've seen the results.

Mr. David Pratt: Sir, I come to this process not with a lot of experience, having just been elected, as David and Judi mentioned, last June 2.

As far as defence issues are concerned, you have a real collection of greenhorns on this committee. But we did get a very good orientation over the last couple of months, in terms of visiting the bases. I can tell you that in the space of one week we hit Yellowknife, we were in Vancouver, Esquimalt, Edmonton, Cold Lake, and Moose Jaw.

We heard from every branch of the service, and we had a lot of very strong comments that we immediately... I can tell you this, that in our case we immediately took the information back to our caucus. And when I say strong comments, you talk about the increment that was given back in December. I asked a fellow in Esquimalt what he thought of that, and he said, “Sir, they gave us just enough to piss us off.”

Voices: Oh, oh.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: And you did.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Mr. David Pratt: But I can tell you that we don't come to this process with any preconceived notions as to how things should be. A lot of us, however, have experience in other areas in our background, and I think all of us know a personnel problem when we see one.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: But it's not just that.

Mr. David Pratt: No, I realize that. It's a lot more than that.

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: You're throwing away a lot of loyal people who have given a good portion of their lives in the service of their country.

Mr. David Pratt: I think what I'm getting at here is this: we have an appreciation of the gravity of the problem. The challenge we face is to get that message, and deliver that message as forcefully as we can back in Ottawa. I have no idea what the results are going to be, but I can tell you that we're going to deliver that message as strongly as we can.

As David Price was mentioning earlier, there are not a lot of arguments on this committee, because I think that, by and large, we're seeing things in the same light. I'm hoping that at least we'll be able to deliver an all-party recommendation in the final analysis.

If we can have unanimity among all the parties on the recommendations that go forward, it will be an even stronger report on that basis. That's certainly what I'm hoping for.

Finally, I think that... You mentioned the minister. Fair enough, we politicians are used to getting shots taken at us. But I think the minister is genuinely concerned about the state of the Canadian Forces right now. He wouldn't have asked us to do this job if he didn't have a personal commitment and a personal interest in what was happening.

I have to take the minister at face value on his comments. I believe him. We've had meetings with him. He has delivered the message to us that he needs us to help deliver the message to his cabinet colleagues and to the rest of Parliament.

• 1655

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: That sounds vaguely familiar, like the 1987 white paper from Perrin Beatty that suddenly got trashed.

Mr. David Pratt: Well, you know, ultimately—

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: That's why you're losing—

Mr. David Pratt: —just as you do your duty, and you do the best you can, that's all we can do. We're going to try to do that, and we're hoping for the best possible results.

All of us recognize the importance of the Canadian Forces in terms of every aspect of the job you do, whether it's search and rescue, upholding our NATO commitment, peacekeeping, or humanitarian assistance. We recognize the importance of those tasks, and we want to make sure that our colleagues do as well, and that we have motivated people in the—

MCpl Lawrence Tierney: You do have motivated people. That's not the problem. Most of us who stay in don't stay in because of the pay.

Mr. David Pratt: I recognize that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Lawrence. I appreciate it. Thank you.

Voices: Hear, hear!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We are running a little bit behind. I don't know what people's commitments are for this evening, but we can probably bring in two more people. Then we would ask the other folks to come back tonight, if it's possible.

We'd like to continue on with Chris Buczynski. Did I get that right this time?

A voice: No.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I've been kind of messing it up all afternoon. I apologize.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I'm just happy to see that there's a committee here to listen to our problems.

Now, as you said, Mr. Pratt, the group of you are going to create the report. Then it goes into whose hands?

Mr. David Pratt: The minister.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: And then the minister has to take it to the cabinet. And then from there I assume it goes to the Treasury Board when it comes to funding?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): It's tabled in the House of Commons.

Mr. David Pratt: Yes, I shouldn't say that. It goes to Parliament, but the minister will be very interested in it personally.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): It's tabled in the House of Commons.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I understand that the Liberal Party right now is in power?

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. David Pratt: Last time I checked.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Yes, okay, I—

Mr. David Pratt: Our majority isn't that big.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I just wanted to double-check that, sir. These are the same people who provided cuts in health, in many affairs in our society right now. How do I know that what you table is going to do anything for us?

The bottom line supposedly right now in the 1990s is the buck, not the person. Is DND going to be excluded from this philosophy?

Mr. David Pratt: I can tell you that in my conversations with various ministers—and I'm not going to mention them—

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Have you spoken with Mr. Massé?

Mr. David Pratt: I've spoken to... I'm not going to mention any particular ministers, but let's say ministers who sit on economic benches, on the treasury benches. The point I have made—and it's a point that has been made by some of my colleagues, as well—is that it was great to get the deficit eliminated, to have the deficit removed as a consideration. We have a big debt to work on now, but in the process of doing so, a lot of people were seriously affected. There's a whole range of issues out there that I could mention.

The military was one of those institutions affected. In my own view, now that the deficit is under control, and perhaps we're going to be looking at surpluses in the coming years, an opportunity exists for us to try to heal some of the wounds that were created by the deficit-cutting battle.

I'm hoping that this view will gain some currency in Ottawa, that there is some fixing to be done after the deficit battle. For lack of a better term, some medical care has to be done to help the wounded in connection with the deficit battle.

That's what we're facing, and it's not just with the Department of National Defence. There are other areas, other priorities as well. In my view, however, DND is a service unlike all the other services the government offers, because of the nature of the work that's done. That puts it in a special category. That is the approach we have to take in dealing with—

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I agree with you 100%, sir. I just feel that we get the opposite. We don't get the loyalty from the government that we should, and it's very unfortunate.

I just wanted to know what weight this committee is going to have. Like I said, I commend you for doing a great job. I'm pretty sure you're going to write it beautifully, but I don't know how this is going to influence the Treasury Board. I just keep hearing we can't afford this, we can't afford that. If there's no money, there's going to be no correction of PMQs. Write that off.

• 1700

Regarding pay increases, aren't we getting 2% every year for the next four years, supposedly? Do we get any more than that? You don't know, because Treasury Board's already decided that's what they're going to get. So automatically they can look at the report and say, screw the pay part.

We're talking about basic components here that we're trying to correct, and it seems as though the government has already decided what they want to do.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): With all due respect, I don't think the government has decided what they want to do. If they did, we wouldn't be sitting here.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: You're sitting there because the government wants you to sit there, sir, and you are—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I'm sitting here because I want to sit here.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I know, but it's been set up. You're going to listen to our problems, and that's great. The Krever inquiry was the same thing. We've had numerous inquiries and commissions. People sit, listen, boom, out the window. Great. I don't know. I hear; I listen. I really hope something happens.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): So do I, or I wouldn't be here.

A voice: You're not bitter at all.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: No, I'm not bitter. Maybe I'm just a realist. I like to think of myself as a positive person. I've just seen too many of my colleagues suffer. I've seen a lack of morale. I've seen people lied to. Do you have the power to correct that? All I ask—

Mr. David Price: Maybe we can give you another situation. Let's look at the worst case scenario. Say the committee takes back a whole lot of stuff and the party in power takes it to cabinet and so on and it's not going through. You've got three parties in opposition here that are going to be hammering back. Even if the rest of the committee can't speak because their caucus holds them down, there are still going to be three other parties that are going to be hammering away at it and keeping it in the public view—

MCpl Chris Buczynski: You guys can't even get it together over a Canadian flag. How are you going to deal with these issues?

Voices: Oh, oh!

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I can wear this flag, sir. I have no problem with how to show it and where to put it. You guys don't know what to do with it. If you can't deal with that basic issue, how are you going to deal with real issues? I just shake my head.

Mr. David Price: On that part, I'm sorry, you're talking for another party that...

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Anyway, that's all I wanted to say.

Is there an NDP representative here on the panel?

Mr. David Price: There is one, but he's not here tonight. It's Dick Proctor.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Can I pass something on to him? Do I have to mention it in the microphone or what?

Mr. David Price: It's recorded. That'll do it.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: Would the NDP be able to do a quality-of-life investigation on their own without the other parties?

Mr. David Price: Sure. I have gone to other bases on my own.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: But specifically the NDP, not with—

Mr. David Price: Sure they can.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: That's a request I have.

Thank you very much. Thanks for listening.

Mr. David Price: I have a brief comment, Mr. Chair. From my conversations with Mr. Proctor, he certainly supports this process in terms of what this committee is trying to accomplish.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: As I said, I agree that you're doing the best you can, but when it comes down to cabinet... Mr. Rock is trying to get money for health care, and everyone's saying forget it, pal, you're DND; you're on the bottom of the list. Who's going to listen to Mr. Eggleton when it comes to bottom-line bucks?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You might be surprised, and I hope you are.

MCpl Chris Buczynski: I hope so.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): We're running a little late here and we have some other commitments. I just wonder if...

Ms. Joanne Geddes (Individual Presentation): I don't have a lot to say. I won't even use my notes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You can. There's no problem.

Mr. Joanne Geddes: I think Ms. Longfield had it right on when she said “It doesn't matter that my constituents are not military, it's good for Canada.” We are one of Canada's natural resources. Not only are we the boy scout leaders in the community, not only are we the sandbaggers in Manitoba, not only are we the linemen in Montreal, but we are also diplomats, ambassadors in Africa and Zaire and, who knows, Kosovo, Bosnia. We are not just military people designed to fight a war. We are multipurpose. Why should the defence budget be nailed for things like the Winnipeg disaster and the Montreal disaster? 1 CDHSR bore the brunt of the cost of that exercise. Why should Defence be the only one paying for it? Look who is benefiting. It is not just the military that is benefiting; it is Canada.

What I want to know is if the bottom line is within fiscal realities, why do we have to remain within the defence budget? There is money. There must be money for other things. If there is money for Canada at large, we should be included in that, not just in the military sense.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Questions?

• 1705

Mrs. Judi Longfield: You're right. There is money in other areas. One of the things—and I think you may see some recommendations in that area—is there's some excess land that's owned by DND.

When out in Esquimalt, for example, the commander told us that if he were allowed to sell off just a small portion of that land and to enter into an arrangement with a private developer, he would have enough money to completely rebuild and establish decent PMQs.

Right now, the acquisition of assets comes out of the DND budget, but the disposal of assets goes back into the treasury. If the disposal of assets went back into DND, there is an excess amount of money that could be spent in areas where there is great need, and I think we are trying to work in those areas. There are areas where money can be borrowed on valuable property to be put back into areas of need in DND, and I think we have to be creative about how we find it. But I think we're determined to find more money for you.

Ms. Joanne Geddes: I think everybody is agreed that we're underfunded, ill-equipped, and overtasked. But speaking of fiscal realities, again, I understand Canada pays its UN dues through the services of its peacekeepers, whereas the United States runs a debt continuously.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Sure. That's certainly something we should look at.

Ms. Joanne Geddes: If we are benefiting the United Nations when we are deployed, and we're paid an extra $1,000 a month, Brown and Root, also hired by the UN, makes five times as much for their civilian employees. So in regard to the United Nations, also, there's some money there. But if they're also benefiting from the training and equipping of the Canadian Forces, perhaps also the responsibility can be partially shared by them.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't disagree with you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you.

We're going to have to close this off. I would hope that Renay Bradley, Captain Elwood, Steve Waller, Corporal Homer, and Corporal Bulger will be able to come back at 7 p.m. tonight, and they will be the first people to present their views. So when we reconvene at 7 p.m., is that all right?

Ms. Renay Bradley (Individual Presentation): I can't make it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Okay. What is your name?

Ms. Renay Bradley: Renay Bradley.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You're on.

Ms. Renay Bradley: All right. I have something very brief to say.

I've sat here as a wife, listening to all the comments, and I've sort of sat back and have come to the conclusion that this is a serious wake-up call and it should not be forgotten. Let us not forget that, as appreciative as we are, you politicians are employed by us. We pay you, we pay your travelling expenses, and we would like to see something done for our money.

When you get into a period of severe disgruntlement like this, one of two things are going to happen: you will be broken, or you're going to be empowered, and I believe that's what's happening.

I would like to see, as a wife who's concerned for her husband and her children, that something happens, because we're going into the 21st century, and this is no longer acceptable.

Thank you very much, panel.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Renay.

That will do it for this portion. We will adjourn and reconvene at 7 p.m. tonight for more presentations.