NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 4, 1998

• 0905

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I welcome you to this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

[English]

We are very pleased this morning to have with us again the CDS, General Baril. I believe it is the last meeting we will have before we sit down and start drafting the report on the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Armed Forces, and, General, we are extremely happy to have you here as a witness today.

You're aware of the way we operate. You make your presentation, and then we go to a question-and-answer period. Without further ado, the floor is yours, sir.

General J.M.G. Baril (Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you, sir.

[Translation]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. I am pleased to be here today as you conclude the public part of your study of social and economic factors affecting the Canadian military. The quality of life study has received considerable media attention, and has been the catalyst for a determined internal process of rethinking, renewal and change. Your study has also excited members of the Canadian Forces, raising expectations among soldiers, sailors, and air men and women of all ranks.

[English]

When I first appeared before you on this matter last autumn, I stated unequivocally my commitment to people issues. Now, eight months later, I am even more committed to this critical endeavour. I sit here today with the Canadian Forces chief warrant officer and the chiefs of the maritime, land and air staff, and I'm pleased to express on their behalf our collective commitment to the process that this committee has begun.

As I said to you the last time I was with you, there are four dimensions to operational effectiveness: good equipment, good training, good leadership, and good conditions of service. Resolving the military quality of life challenges is the number one priority for the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence. It is our number one priority because we have allowed it to fall out of step with the other three dimensions, and it has become crystal clear that without reasonable conditions of service, operational effectiveness cannot be optimized.

Like the others present here today, I have followed your proceedings very closely, first as the chief of the land staff, and now as the Chief of the Defence Staff. As a result of your forum and your questions, our understanding of the quality of life challenges facing Canadian Forces members has been broadened. It has caused us to ask questions about the way we do business and about the way we take care of our people.

Mr. Chair, you and this committee have held 20 hearings here in Ottawa. You have spent over 25 days on the road visiting bases, and we estimate that your public hearings across the country have drawn over 6,000 people.

You have visited the Canadian Forces in their garrisons and on operation. You rode in ships, tanks and helicopters, and we hear that in Bosnia you even walked a few kilometres in their boots.

Before I go any further, I must thank you for the commitment you have shown to this study and for having taken the time to develop a true understanding of the military.

[Translation]

Mr. Chair, I would ask that as a final public sign of your commitment, you bear with me for 30 minutes as we wrap up this extensive process. I would like to take some time to expand on the diagram that you have before you. I will start by going to each of the five pillars of the quality of life dimension of operational effectiveness, highlighting the main principles related to each. I will also give a few examples of what we have done in each area using existing resources.

As you know, each of the three services—Maritime, Land and Air—have committed themselves to improving the quality of life of their own personnel and the examples that I will present to you today are only a sampling of the initiatives that have been undertaken.

• 0910

For each pillar, I will also provide you with examples of where we need your help. As you will see, there are three main ways in which you can help. First, you can provide your own assessment of what needs to be addressed on a priority basis. Second, you can reinforce the need for legislative changes that will be required to fulfill the quality of life mandate. Third, you can sanction the four dimensions of operational effectiveness, thus recognizing that there can be no trade-off and recommending that new funding be provided in support of the Quality of Life endeavour. I will then make a few remarks about the other two components—the roof and the foundation—to conclude with, of course, a few words about funding.

[English]

I will begin with the topic of compensation and benefits.

Throughout your travel, you've heard about Canadian Forces members at food banks and about individuals who are holding down multiple jobs just to make ends meet. You heard from one woman who has had to write cheques for groceries knowing that the cheque will bounce. You've heard members' frustration with their inability to predict their standard of living and to cushion themselves from the drastic differences in costs of living across this country. You've heard the tearful testimony of mothers who cannot take their children to the doctor because they can't afford to put gas in their car. You've heard that there are ongoing problems with the reserve pay system, that employment insurance contributions and mess dues are not fair, and that the intent of our system of benefits and allowance is negated by the taxation structure.

Those stories are indicative of a system that has strayed from its basic principles, of which we believe there are three.

First and foremost is the fact that service in the military is a unique endeavour. It is not a job; rather, it is a vocation, a calling to serve one's country and to be ready to make the ultimate sacrifice.

Secondly, Canadian Forces members are entitled to a reasonable and consistent standard of living wherever they live and work. We do not give them a choice of where to go; instead, we order them to move, imposing upon them the consequences of this country's regional economic differences.

Thirdly, the military is also a profession, and like any other, it must be competitive, attracting and retaining the brightest and the best of Canadian society.

To be true to those principles, the military compensation and benefit package must be fair, equitable, and attractive. Pay comparability with the public service should be maintained as a means to benchmark basic military pay; however, this basic pay must be supplemented to compensate for the loss of personal freedom, posting turbulence, extended periods of separation from loved ones, and overtime, the daily lot of Canadian Forces personnel.

You all know what the department and the Canadian Forces have done to improve pay for our military members: $ 190 million has been spent on pay comparability adjustment, and $ 58 million on the reserve get well program. Environmental allowances, which compensate Canadian Forces members whose military duty involves periodic or continuous exposure to adverse environmental conditions and hazards, have been increased by 7.9% in the last 15 months. We have also improved the home leave travel benefit for Canadian Forces members who are deployed for more than 4 months at a time. It guarantees these members a flight home during the operation, and 15 days with their families, not including travelling time. The most recent initiative in this area has been the announcement of a pilot retention incentive package that will help to reduce pilot attrition.

That and more has been accomplished within the existing budget. However, it is with regret that I say to you today that we cannot do anything more of substance without new money. It is in this regard that we need your help.

Let us start with base pay for entry-level ranks. As you know, the salaries paid to privates and ordinary seamen, officer cadets, second lieutenants, sub-lieutenants and lieutenants are not reasonable wages given what is expected from the individual in these ranks. The situation is critical and needs to be addressed on an urgent basis. To my mind, the only way to do this is to increase entry-level pay for these ranks.

Secondly, it is time that the members of the Canadian Forces be compensated adequately for the exigencies and uniqueness of military service, for the loss of personal freedom that such service entails, for extended periods of separation from loved ones, and for the posting turbulence intrinsic to the military lifestyle. The X-factor, or the level of remuneration for these unique conditions of service, has not changed since 1981. However, we all know that the nature of military service has changed, that our members' expectations have changed and that a smaller force has meant more work, turbulence and stress for all involved. Because I will not have this opportunity again, I will mention a few other items that we think need to be addressed.

• 0915

I would like to see the accommodation assistance allowance, or triple-A as it called, grossed up to take away the impact of taxation, as well as the implementation of a cost-of-living allowance that is independent of triple-A.

Finally, I would welcome a system of lateral pay progression, under which we could compensate our people for skill rather than for just rank. We need more such avenues for rewarding our skilled personnel in an environment where rank or vertical progression is very slow.

[Translation]

I will now move to the second pillar—accommodation for our members and their families.

In your travels, you have visited countless quarters for both our single and married members. You have heard about the health hazards posed by water seepage, toxic moulds and vermin. You have heard about the inadequacy of single quarters, the poor quality of response from housing officials on some bases, and the problems with the Home Equity Assistance Program and the Guaranteed Home Sales Program. Finally, you have heard that some of our accommodations are so shoddy that children's health may be suffering and that some living quarters are considered unhabitable by social services agencies.

Granted, military quarters were not run down overnight. Their current condition is the net result of decades of poor management practices and under-funding. But the fact that Canadian Forces members accept to live in such conditions is a clear indication of a continued need for military housing. Accordingly, it must become a governing principle that all Canadian Forces members are entitled to a reasonable, consistent and suitable standard of accommodation. Wherever they are, all members must also have access to affordable accommodation. How the needs will be met shall vary by location, but the needs must and will be met. In order to accomplish this, we must remove the shackles and straightjacket from the Canadian Forces Housing Agency. At present, the Agency's only source of revenue is rental income. This is not enough to maintain the current standards, let alone improve the quality of our housing stock. As you have heard from both the CEO of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency and from the Treasury Board representatives during their respective appearances before you on March 17 and 19, we must give this organization the authority, flexibility, and resources it needs to be a responsible and effective custodian of the Canadian Forces' housing supply.

The Canadian Forces are going ahead with some much-needed improvements to our housing infrastructure. The Air Force is spending $ 1.4 million to upgrade single quarters. The Navy has spent approximately $ 5 million in the renewal of main galleys in major Accommodation Blocks on both coasts. Over $ 24 million has been spent to construct four barrack blocks at CFB Edmonton, which will house 540 double occupancy and 293 single occupancy quarters. Another $ 12.5 million are being spent to replace the water distribution and sewer collection systems that pass through the married quarters at CFB Trenton. As well, the Defence Management Committee has directed Canadian Forces Housing Agency receive $ 5 million this year and another $ 5 million next year to address some of the most acute health and safety hazards found in the Canadian Forces housing stock. We all know that the housing stock is in desperate need of other improvements, but Canadian Forces Housing Agency does not have the authority to generate revenue to fulfill these needs.

My first request of you in this area is that you recognize the importance of military housing to the operational effectiveness of the Canadian Forces. The Canadian Forces Housing Agency must be allowed to operate as a not-for-profit business where availability of adequate and affordable housing is paramount, and the decisions are based on sound business case practices. A responsive agency with the proper authorities and governed by the principles I have just stated would go a long way in overcoming accommodation-related financial and material challenges.

A second request would be the elimination of the ten percent rule on the Home Equity Assistance Program, as a financial security measure for those of our members who purchase their own homes. This would give Canadian Forces members confidence in their ability to build equity over the course of a military career without giving them an unfair advantage.

• 0920

[English]

The third quality of life pillar is the military family. You have heard heart-wrenching stories about families who have been torn apart because we cannot post married service couples together, because there are too many challenges for spouses in finding employment, or because we require our members to be separated from their families for an inordinate amount of time each year.

You've heard about the need for better child care facilities tailored to the military lifestyle and you've heard about the effects of cuts to recreational facilities as well as the effects of stress on military family units. Indications are that the increase in operational tempo during the nineties has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of family break-ups.

We would be naive to think that the reduction in the size of the forces has not contributed to the heightened level of stress for our military families. There are three fundamental principles of military service, all of which have a significant effect on military families:

1. Service members must ultimately place service to country and the needs of the Canadian Forces ahead of personal preference.

2. Service members are required to remain mobile, to enhance training and experience and to maintain overall operational capabilities.

3. The well-being of the family is a key factor in ensuring the effectiveness of the Canadian Forces member. However, for the foreseeable future the desire of members for family stability and the service requirement for mobility of the members will be increasingly at odds. Therefore, it is up to the employer, the Canadian Forces and the government, to furnish the necessary support programs and to provide a consistent and comprehensive level of support wherever military families are located and whenever the families are required to move. The Canadian Forces might also provide flexible options and policies that will allow members and their families reasonable choice in the face of instability.

To the greatest extent possible, we have been abiding by these principles. Over the past two years, over $ 23 million has been spent to enhance core service of the military family support programs, services related to deployment, posting adjustment, information sharing, children and youth services, crisis support and spousal employment.

We have embarked on a $ 150 million infrastructure recapitalization project for our personnel support program. This initiative, the largest of its type in the past 45 years, is supported jointly by public and non-public funds.

The 57 individual projects will provide new or renovated arenas, swimming pools, gymnasiums and community centres for the Canadian Forces members and their families.

We have also become proactive in advising supervisors on how to apply and interpret various high-level personnel policies in a family-friendly manner. We're reviewing the compassionate posting policy and we will make feasible changes.

Finally, I'm pleased to say we will be expanding the service income security insurance plan's financial planning services to 13 Canadian Forces locations across the country.

To further enhance the quality and quantity of support that we provide to the military family, a child care support allowance that meets operational requirements, irregular working hours and short-notice call-outs for operations is required. The increasing number of single-parent members and married service couples families have created an ongoing need for child care support options to ensure that operational capability and effectiveness are not adversely affected. We cannot leave these parents to themselves.

In the past, Treasury Board has made offers of funding for military child care service equivalent to that available to public servants. However, this offer was declined because the conditions for compensation were very restrictive and had the potential to create significant inequities. The Canadian Forces need a child care benefit that will be available to all Canadian Forces personnel who, for service reasons, have to leave their families for more than 14 days in a row.

In recognition of the sacrifice made by the spouses of military members, we would like to provide full-time employment assistance counsellors to help spouses secure employment in new locations.

Furthermore, we need to do more to prepare our military families for life in areas where their mother tongue is not the lingua franca. Accordingly, we would like to provide second and other language training for military families, because their lives will come to a standstill if they cannot speak the language of their neighbours.

• 0925

The last thing I would mention to you on this theme is the need to allow members and their spouses to make statements of ordinary residence. That is, our members and their families need to be able to designate a province of residency for licence and registration purposes. Such a mechanism would lend stability to their lives and lessen the costs associated with interprovincial moves.

[Translation]

The fourth pillar in the qualify of life dimension is care of injured personnel, veterans and retirees. In your travels, you have heard about the manner in which we have often treated our injured, our veterans, our retirees, and the families of deceased personnel. You have heard about the insurmountable bureaucracy that injured personnel face in their quest for compensation, and about the inequities that result from the current way in which the Pension Act assigns benefits to injured personnel. And you have also heard that members of the Canadian Forces are afraid to seek medical attention for fear of having their careers terminated under the Universality of Service Policy.

The fundamental principle of military service is that of unlimited liability to serve—of being prepared to give one's life in the service of Canada's interests, at home or abroad. You have heard it from Colonel Calvin—Canadian Forces personnel will die, if you ask them to do so. Because the government of Canada and the Canadian Forces demand this, we must also provide all sick or injured personnel with consistent and comprehensive medical support programs that provide continuity of medical care while serving, after release, and on retirement. Furthermore, recognizing that the injury or death of a service man or woman has an immediate and traumatic impact on the financial and psychological well-being of service members and their families, it is essential that we provide the proper care to those affected in a humane and timely manner.

To this end, the Canadian Forces have established a Disability Compensation Information/Advisory Cell. We have created reciprocal liaison positions and have improved the working relationship with Veterans Affairs Canada. We are now providing released personnel with contact names and numbers to answer questions related to compensation. We have also devoted resources to improving the Canadian Forces' medical and dental infrastructure. A new facility has been built in Gagetown, and we have recently renovated the clinic in Cold Lake.

But the Care of Injured Personnel and Their Families Review has been the most comprehensive initiative in this area. Now in the second of three phases, it is a thorough review of Canadian Forces policy on medical treatment for personnel, the benefits available to injured, the system that administers these benefits, and the effects that these policies have on the members and their families.

However, this is not nearly enough. We need your help to provide what is known as "own occupation long term disability." This would provide added security for those of our members who, although they can no longer serve because of a disability, are not entitled to a full disability pension. With an "own occupation long term disability" benefit provided by the Service Income Security Insurance Plan, members would be entitled to two years of re- training, remuneration, and preparation for work outside the Canadian Forces.

We also need legislative endorsement to extend assistance to Reserve Force members experiencing or in danger of experiencing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Finally, we need to see legislative changes to the Pension Act, so that all members of the Canadian Forces realize the same benefits when they are injured on duty—whether that duty was being served at home or abroad. I am pleased to say that the Minister of National Defence has recently brought this matter to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs. However, you know better than anyone the complexities of making changes to legislation, and any support you could lend to the process would be greatly appreciated.

[English]

I will turn now to the topic of work expectations. It is in this final pillar that we find concern related to the member himself or herself. You have heard that Canadian Forces members feel they are not properly equipped for the job, from personal clothing to larger pieces of kit. You have heard their perception of imbalance in the ranks as well as their fears that promotions are at a standstill. You've heard their concerns about how their careers are managed and how they want more in the way of second-language training. You've been told about eroded trust, double standards and slumping morale. You have also heard about how Canadian Forces members have had to deal with years of negative media coverage. Through your travels and your hearings you've been presented with the cumulative effects of all of these factors: heightened stress, utter frustration, and sometimes even outright anger.

• 0930

To be a profession of choice, the Canadian Forces must remain an institution characterized by professionalism, treating all members with dignity, honesty and respect. Canadian Forces personnel are entitled to reasonable work expectations, appropriate recognition and fair evaluation of performance. As well, they should have a reasonable and equitable opportunity for advancement based on merit and the need of the Canadian Forces, and sufficient resources and adequate training to carry out their duty.

To begin to improve the situation for the individual member, we have allotted a considerable amount of money for new equipment, improved training and enhancing leadership at all levels of the chain of command. As the committee knows, the government has already approved the purchase of new helicopters, armoured personnel carriers and “previously enjoyed” submarines.

The clothe the soldier program, for which deliveries have already started, and which is scheduled for completion in 2002, will see $ 170 million spent on items of personal protective clothing. Another $ 31 million is being spent on improving landmine detection and clearing equipment. The navy is spending $ 7 million to replace outdated boarding-party equipment, and an additional $ 1.6 million for satellite feeds for the shipborne TV sets.

Finally, we're revisiting the leave policy to see what can be done to make it more flexible and accommodating of members' needs. Recognizing that Canadian demographic and social expectations are changing rapidly, we're putting in place a number of initiatives to keep pace, to ensure that the Canadian Forces always reflect the society they serve.

The Defence Diversity Council, comprised of senior leaders in the department and a member of the Human Rights Commission, has been established to formulate policy and monitor progress with respect to enhancing women, visible minority and aboriginal membership. Minority members advisory groups have been established to keep me apprised of their needs and the progress being made. We're continuously conducting research and monitoring our diversity climate.

We're fully committed to gender integration in the Canadian Forces and a significant and concerted effort is being made to attract Canadian women to a military career, while simultaneously ensuring that our military culture is accepting of them. Attitudes do not change overnight and unacceptable situations have arisen. We have a stringent anti-harassment policy in place and all units have a harassment adviser. Sexual harassment and racism preventing training is mandatory for all military and civilian members of the defence team. Although we're making progress, we will never be satisfied until the number of incidents drops to zero.

To ensure that Canadian Forces' members have opportunity to freely voice complaints without fear of repercussion, we are putting in a greatly streamlined grievance system and an independent organizational ombudsperson. As well, we will be introducing a conflict management system similar to the one used by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, which will help resolve complaints at the lowest possible level and in the most expeditious manner possible.

The quality of leadership in the Canadian Forces has a significant impact on our members' quality of life. The report to the Prime Minister on leadership and management of the Canadian Forces examined the issue closely, and we've been working hard to implement the recommendations that stem from this report. In particular, we have taken steps to strengthen the leadership training that we provide to our people. New leadership courses for the officers corps are in the final stage of development. This includes a new three-month course for senior leaders, emphasizing jointness, senior leadership and ethics, and a six-month course for new general and flag officers that emphasizes executive leadership, strategic operation and resource management.

As Chief of the Defence Staff, I have made it my priority to give Canadians every reason to be proud of the Canadian Forces for the work they do at home and abroad. We have responsibility for creating a high-quality product and for providing unparalleled and excellent service. Our request to you is that you become an active partner in this venture and take upon yourselves the responsibility for marketing the product.

• 0935

[Translation]

This, in a nutshell, represents the five pillars of quality of life. The aforementioned examples of internal DND/Canadian Forces initiatives are not exhaustive; they are but a sampling of the kinds of things we are doing. And my suggestions about what we would like to see reflected in your final report are also not exhaustive. But the ideas are there—the Canadian Forces and the Committee share a commitment, and we share an understanding about the challenges facing the military.

[English]

As I mentioned at the beginning, conditions of service are a critical element of operational effectiveness. I know that the stories you have heard in your travels have made this relationship very clear. The principles associated with every pillar must be fulfilled if the Canadian Forces are to be a professional, stable, and effective institution.

As the diagram depicts, quality of life rests squarely on five pillars. There's a human element to force generation and it cannot be ignored. You heard it, you saw it, and when emotions ran high during your public hearings, you felt it. I need not take the analogy of the roof on the house any further. You likely know what happens to the roof of a house when the supports are out of square.

[Translation]

Our last stop on the tour of the structure is the foundation- likely the structure's most important element. We all know the rule that a firm foundation plays in keeping a house from falling apart; the analogy here is very real. The essence of this particular foundation is a commitment from the country to support, respect and nurture its own military institution. It has been brought to your attention numerous times that soldiers perceive a lack of commitment from the Government of Canada to its military. Let us look at this relationship one last time.

At all times, the government demands from the Canadian Forces the utmost level of performance and dedication. The Government and the country demand an exceptionally high standard of personal integrity, honour, loyalty, courage and commitment from the military. To the government, the military is a 90,000-strong cadre of ambassadors, an extension of its foreign policy, and often the tool used to demonstrate political resolve. At home, the Canadian Forces are also the institution of last resort. When disaster strikes, members of the Canadian Forces leave their families, who are often stranded and in danger themselves, and work to protect other Canadians from harm.

[English]

Why does the government do this? Because it knows it can depend upon the Canadian Forces to respond without hesitation and that there will be no argument or lack of enthusiasm.

Time and again the Canadian Forces have said “Yes, sir”, and performed a given task to the best of their ability. In the Canadian Forces the government has, for the most part, a dedicated group of men and women, regular and reserve, who serve because their commitment to their country is stronger than any other commitment in their life.

We need a strong and comprehensive report that will help us do the job that we have already begun to do. The study has raised expectations in the Canadian Forces that something good and concrete will result. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that a lot of this concrete had better be poured into the foundation of our pillar.

I realize that it will be left up to the government to determine what action will be taken on your recommendation. I respect this process because this is our system of government and it is the process that maintains good governments.

However, I have a suggestion to make to those of you gathered here today. As a standing committee of the House of Commons, you have an opportunity to become stewards of a public trust and caretakers of our commitment to maintaining a healthy foundation for military quality of life.

You speak for Canadians from coast to coast, and you can express on their behalf through a statement in your report the gratitude Canadians feel for the work of the Canadian Forces and the pride they have in this institution.

In your work in constituencies across the country, you can spread the word about the work that every soldier, sailor, airman, and air woman does and the commitment you have witnessed. You have a voice in Parliament that can speak for members of the Canadian Forces who have no voice.

There's nothing to stop you, as a committee, from upholding the principle of fair compensation, suitable recognition, suitable and affordable accommodation, reasonable support for the military family, and reasonable work expectations. Your work in this regard can start in your final report with a statement of commitment to the men and women of the Canadian Forces on behalf of the people of Canada.

If you do this, then you will, by definition, lead Parliament in recognizing and rewarding the unique commitment and sacrifices of this country's military men and women.

• 0940

[Translation]

This is only the beginning of this committee's mandate. I urge you, over the next four years, to not forget the stories you have heard and the experiences you have had. I urge you as Canadian citizens who have seen the Canadian Forces in action at home and abroad, to never forget about the people who have stood before you. I invite you to revisit these issues again next year to see how we are progressing. And I know from reading the transcripts of your public hearings that you as individuals have already committed yourselves to following up on the implementation of your recommendations.

The Canadian Forces is a highly visible, national institution. As Chief of the Defence Staff, I want to ensure that Canadians are proud of this institution, its members, and the role they play both at home or abroad. I hope that your report will help me achieve this goal.

[English]

Before concluding, it is incumbent upon me to speak briefly about the question of resources. As I said to you at my last appearance here, well-functioning armed forces in any country require the proper training, equipment, leadership, and condition of service. These four elements are a package. Each has different requirements at different points in time, and to the greatest extent possible, all must be kept in balance.

However, no one element can ever be removed from the package without jeopardizing the operational effectiveness of the armed forces. Each element must meet a minimum standard. I must tell you today that if, in order to meet a reasonable standard of condition of service, I am required to borrow resources from one of the other three areas, the entire package will suffer.

I'm looking for money for the quality of life initiative already under way. No spreadsheet has been left untouched. There is not much more we can do without additional funding, and I would be remiss in my responsibility if I pretended that this was not the case. Moreover, this country's servicemen and servicewomen need a tangible demonstration of their government's commitment to them, and resources speak volumes about commitment.

Finally, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I would like to thank you all for the monumental work you have done in support of the Canadian Forces. You kept up with an ambitious schedule. You subjected yourself to countless briefings. You sat through many hours of public testimony from people who have been waiting a very long time to speak. On behalf of the 90,000 members under my command, I offer my sincere gratitude to all of you.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you very much, General. We will now go to the question period.

[English]

This will be a 10-minute round. We'll start off with Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I want to thank you and your colleagues for being here this morning. I want to reiterate some of the things you said in your report. I think you addressed a lot of those items that we certainly encountered.

This tour, for me, has been very beneficial in that it has given me a broad view of some of the things that go on in the military, such as how it operates and how it doesn't operate in some respects. It certainly has laid out a lot of concerns that probably had never been expressed openly. So in that regard, I appreciate the opportunity of having been part of this committee to travel about.

There's one thing you just touched on in your presentation, General. Although it may not be, in total, the concern of a lot of people in the military, I believe it has significant ramifications when you look at quality of life issues both in the past, now, and in terms of what the future is going to be like. This is something that has been very evident in the news in the last little while. There was a story, of course, just recently on the allegations of sexual assault in Edmonton.

But it doesn't seem that the military investigative structure has a very good hand on how to really go about handling all the complaints in the past. I don't even know about the present. I personally feel uncomfortable that if you have an outside agency investigating these complaints, they're going to be done in a much more efficient manner.

• 0945

I don't know about you, but I don't feel confident that the NIS has the capabilities to handle all kinds of major criminal offences. Given the past structure of the NIS and the military police, given that they sat within the chain of command and still sit within the chain of command, they are subject to interference. They're not as independent as one would like, and they, as I pointed out, certainly aren't necessarily trained in all areas. That came to rest with me when those in the provost marshal's office and others explained just how this structure was going to end up being: that because of the, if you will, small size of the Canadian military, it really didn't lend itself to a significant investigative force.

So looking at sexual assault and harassment, if you want to call it criminal harassment too, there's no question it has to stop. With the example in Edmonton, even though there was swift action, I believe the swift action resulted only because there was a complaint made outside the military structure. If that's the case—and I certainly would appreciate your opinion.... If you see things that way, I would certainly like to hear your opinion.

Also, would you commit yourself to developing an independent investigative unit, more in the line of an inspector general's office, for looking into these allegations, both past and present? I think the need is there.

Gen Maurice Baril: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I cannot and I will not discuss the investigation in Edmonton, and you're very much aware that what can be discussed has been made public and it's in the hands of the police of Edmonton and also the provost marshal of the Canadian Forces.

As to the fundamental of your comment and question, whether I feel we have adequate investigation capability, my answer is yes, with the change that has taken place in the past year, with the change that is in front of Parliament now with Bill C-25, and with the mechanism we have in place for investigation. And the provost marshal had certainly said that. It's like any police organization we have in our country: when it's beyond their capability because of the volume or the size of an investigation, the police force will go outside for help, in volume or in expertise.

The military police and the National Investigation Service have been revamped very much. You've mentioned they're still within the chain of command. Well, they're still in the Canadian Forces. They're paid by the Canadian Forces, and like any city police, they belong to the city, I guess. So if you say they're still in the chain of command, yes, they are still military, but they don't answer to the chain of command. The National Investigation Service do not answer to the chain of command. They don't answer to me. They don't answer to anyone who commands anybody in the forces. The provost marshal will report—not answer, but will report—to the vice-chief of defence staff, who does not command anybody in the Canadian Forces. I do.

So from that point of view, I'm satisfied that the National Investigation Service is free from common interference.

Also, in Bill C-25, as you're probably aware, there is a Military Police Complaints Commission. This will allow those being investigated to complain against the police, and vice versa—if the police witness interference by the chain of command, they can also complain to the commission, which will be outside the Canadian Forces.

Mr. Art Hanger: Well, I guess if you're looking at true independence, I don't see it, personally, and I don't think others see it.

But given the fact that it's established this way, certainly the benefit of doubt will go to you, General, and to the provost marshal to see that things are carried out. The bottom line is that when a general or a commissioned officer gets into trouble, we'll just see how effective that force really is, because that is where the eyes of not only this committee but others will be to see that it's conducted in a reasonable fashion and that the people are charged and brought to justice accordingly. The record doesn't show that in the past.

• 0950

Gen Maurice Baril: As you're probably aware, charges are laid now by the investigator and member of the NIS, the National Investigation Service, which was definite before, and it has been changed as of 1 November last year. So an investigator, just like a civilian police or a mounted police, will go in and lay a charge. That's the way, and it's happening now.

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm curious now on another side—it deals with another office, but it also deals with the criminal justice issue, the military justice issue—and that goes over into the medical services.

I am aware of an allegation of rape that had taken place in the military. It was quite a violent one, in my opinion. A complaint was laid. The complaint was shunted off to the side. There were efforts on the part of the complainant to have a medical test done in the military hospital—that is, to have a rape kit taken. That was refused. And of course the complainant—and I might say she was in the military, as a member—in her efforts to have some satisfaction of someone listening, including superior officers, was frustrated at every end until she was literally drummed out of the military. All this was within a very short period of time, I might add, from her enlistment.

The surgeon general is responsible for some instruction here to medical staff. I know that in military hospitals there are rape kits for military personnel to take and use, the medical services side. I have a hard time understanding. Maybe the surgeon general has not instructed their staff very well in how to use these or when to use them, but I have a difficult time understanding why that would not be normal procedure in your military hospitals.

Gen Maurice Baril: It's difficult for me to comment on a very specific case you know about that I'm not aware of, unless you have turned it in to us or unless it's one that was in Maclean's magazine. Was it in Maclean's magazine?

Mr. Art Hanger: I'm not sure if it was or not.

Gen Maurice Baril: Any of the allegations we have are looked at and reopened by the provost marshal, including all those that appeared in Maclean's magazine and all those that are reported to my office, to the 800 number we have, or by any other means they come in. Every one of them is looked at in great detail.

In that case, where you're talking about the procedure, if those kits are in medical hands, of course it is the procedure. If someone in one of the several clinics we have across Canada takes it upon himself to behave in the way you have depicted, that is totally unacceptable. I don't know how far in the past it was, but it's still not okay. If we have reason to open it up and go into it, we will. Whatever investigation we do, we're going up the chain and down the chain to find out what happened.

The Chairman: Very quickly, Mr. Hanger.

Mr. Art Hanger: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should point out that this type of incident is not uncommon within even the medical services. When you think about, first of all, a traumatized victim under those circumstances entering a hospital and having ranking officers, commissioned officers, thwart the efforts of her even laying a complaint, how are you going to pick up on evidence and on everything else that goes with it? To me, someone within medical services should be dancing to the tune on that particular issue and others that come to light.

• 0955

Gen Maurice Baril: They certainly will, when investigations are taking place and if any allegation that is being made is found to be true. As you know, you cannot just line up people against the wall and shoot them on allegations. We must have proof.

Mr. Art Hanger: It's not whether they're true or not. The fact that a complaint is laid, there's a procedure to follow...what happens afterwards is up to a court to decide.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hanger.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Good morning, general. Thank you for your presentation. It does of course cover several of my own concerns. In many cases, you were right on target.

There are, however, things that you did not deal with directly but that I know are of concern to you, because they are dealt with indirectly, in the discussions on lateral progression, for example, and subsequent remuneration.

I would like to talk about the infamous career managers. It seems that in the Canadian Forces, there are people who supervise career paths for others. Several service members appeared before us during the various hearings we held across the country and complained about their career manager, or their impresario as I call them. These service members often told us that they did not know their career manager, that they had never seen him or her. As strange as it may sound, they had never seen the person who was responsible for overseeing their career progression and for advising them on their careers. Everything they had heard from their career managers was based on what I would call the manager's quasi-judicial role. Their requests were repeatedly rejected.

I would like you to explain the role and mandate of career managers in the Canadian Forces. Whom do they represent? The soldier or management in the Armed Forces? Whose representatives are they? Do they have budgets and are they accountable to one service or another? It seem that some irregularities have occurred and we were told: "There is no money to post so and so to such and such a place." I would like to hear your comments on that, because this is something that is of grave concern to me. I would like to be able to introduce something on that when we sit down and work in committee.

Gen. Maurice Baril: I would like to point out that the Chairman and several committee members spent several hours yesterday visiting our career managers' offices or mazes.

Career managers are part of the Canadian Forces Chief of Personnel organization. Unfortunately, when you hear people complain about their career managers it is because they are not happy with the posting they have received or the way in which they were treated. We call them career managers, but they are the people who carry out the decisions that have been made for each member of the Canadian Forces concerning their service or the development of their careers. What you heard for the most part concerned postings. When someone wants to go to Vancouver, he or she is sent somewhere else. I believe that I have already said that as members of the Canadian Forces we have to accept that the well-being and requirements of the Canadian Forces come before our personal needs and very often before our families. When there are exceptions, we have procedures to deal with them.

You talked about career managers who do not have money to post people. Posting people is expensive. We cannot start posting people just because they want to go to one place or another. Postings are always based on service requirements.

It is very difficult to be the bearer of bad news. No one ever mentioned that career managers call people throughout the country to inform them that they have been promoted, that they are going to staff college, that they are going exactly where they want to go. You only heard the bad news. Unfortunately it is always up to the career manager to announce this bad news. The career manager must make recommendations to the people who are entitled to make the decisions. These decisions are difficult ones for families and for individuals.

Career managers are not loose cannons who are holed up in a building here; they are people who are part of the chain of command, and careers are managed through the chain of command. But the person who carries out the decision in the end, unfortunately...

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: That leads me to another question that you addressed indirectly in your response, when you said that postings were costly.

• 1000

We heard suggestions in different places. Someone said that instead of a three-year posting, it would perhaps be preferable to have five or seven-year postings in order to cut costs and place limits on the game of musical chairs that is played. Perhaps you already raised it, but when people speak English, sometimes I have a little difficulty following. I do not think you raised it in your opening statement.

Gen. Maurice Baril: We did not mention it because it is a program that is in place to stabilize the military community and cut costs. We cannot start moving all around Canada when an average move costs $ 18,000. However, as you can see, stabilization or long postings have their good sides and their bad sides. When an individual chooses to remain in a place or does not like a place, it can have an impact on his career development. But long postings get quite long, when someone does not want to be where he is.

It is very difficult to please everyone. We cannot please everyone. We have 90,000 members, of which 60,000 are Regular Force members. The number of postings went from roughly 12 or 13,000 per year, including releases, to roughly 4,000 at present. The figures show that we have considerably reduced the number of postings as well as the amounts of money spent.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: You've made a suggestion on page 6 of your statement. You talk about residency for service members. I remember hearing about that. It concerns me. The notion of ordinary place of residence is of interest to me personally because I am a notary public by training. It is important in Quebec law.

You recommend recognizing in the National Defence Act or in some other legal document that service members from Quebec who are posted to British Columbia, for example, maintain their Quebec residency as far as drivers' licences or hunting licences go. Is that what you are suggesting?

Gen. Maurice Baril: That is exactly what I am suggesting. In the American forces, service members have a declared State. The members of the Armed Forces, I believe, even pay taxes in the State that they have declared. There is no doubt that that is the case for their drivers' licences, their cars and perhaps some other things.

Here, when we leave Canada to go to Europe, we need to have a valid Canadian drivers' licence to obtain a drivers' licence in a NATO country. We are given a NATO drivers' licence. However, when the licence expires and when the man or woman or even the adult children want to renew their drivers' licence, they are no longer residents of Canada. So they end up going around in circles. They don't know where to turn. It's extremely difficult to move from one province to another.

I came back from the United States in 1995. I had to go back to my country. I went back to Quebec at that time and it was quite complicated: the driver's licences, the hunting and fishing licences, health insurance, etc. Less than a year later, I moved to Ontario. I thought it would be easier to move to Ontario. But it was the same thing all over again. It was probably just as complicated. It's expensive when you have to go through this process every two or three years. Having my car inspected in Quebec, having it inspected in Ontario, changing the licence plate, changing the insurance, all this is very complicated. I think that this suggestion will also be complicated because you are probably going to have to negotiate the matter with ten provinces and two territories.

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: As you know, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lebel.

[English]

Mr. Proud.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, General, for coming here again today to appear before us. It's always good to have the CDS appear before us.

You said in your presentation you've touched on all the areas that have been brought to our attention—the quality of housing, the inadequacy of pay and benefits, the lack of support services, and even the military leadership and the military justice system. I'm not sure how this situation got this bad, but I'm sure it happened, as you are. I'm sure we as a committee, and you as CDS, and your administrators have to make sure this is brought back to a normal spectrum and never ever happens again, hopefully. I think we want to make sure it is better for all the services, for the regular and the reserves. That's a very important part.

• 1005

Since we began our study, of course, many changes have been made. I don't whether that's a result of your being the new CDS, our new minister, or this committee's publicity, but I do know that changes have started to happen. I can only trust that when our recommendations come forward and are accepted, as you said, by the government, we can trust that you and others and your administrators will ensure they are carried out that and the money that will be forthcoming, I'm sure, will get down to the areas where it's most needed, because as the committee's seen in its travels, things are in a pretty deteriorated state.

I will be continually pushing for more funding for the military. I believe in that. I lost that battle in 1994, but I'm still continuing it and I will continue it as long as I'm on this committee. I believe we need more personnel, more equipment and better facilities, therefore we need more money.

I believe we need to have a strong military that is present in all areas of our country. For instance, when we were dealing with the restructuring of the reserves, the important issue was the community link they represented. I believe that goes for the regular forces as well. When people see them and their work, as they have here recently in the floods and the ice storms and whatever, they recognize the true value of our military.

In my home province of Prince Edward Island, we don't have any regular forces, but we have reserves. My community knows the importance of the military. Prince Edward Island has contributed to the military its fair share or more in this century.

I am not sure what will be in the report, but I have a pretty good idea what my suggestions will be. I just want to make sure there's some kind of process in place, be it this committee or a subcommittee of this committee or whatever, to help you people see that these recommendations are carried out. I believe very strongly we have to get to an area...and a commitment has to be forthcoming from the government today on our military—a positive, strong commitment.

I look forward, first of all, to the report and then the recommendations and implementation of them. Thank you very much.

Gen Maurice Baril: I can only say thank you, sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Pratt.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

General, I'd like to echo the comments of some of my colleagues in terms of the excellent presentation you made. I think it's clear you've been listening and watching what's been happening with the committee. As Mr. Proud said, I think all of us are certainly committed to the idea of more funding for the Canadian Forces. For me personally, it's been quite an incredible education over the last five months, visiting the bases and talking to the Canadian Forces personnel.

From my conversations with the CF personnel, one of the concerns I have is the expectations that have been created by this committee. You've certainly been around the military and Ottawa long enough to understand how the system works. I'm just wondering if, over the course of the committee's hearings, we've created expectations that we may not be able to fulfil.

Can I get your comments on that? There is the potential that we could be in a worse situation, as far as morale is concerned, than we were in before we started this process if there's no money forthcoming from the government to do the sorts of things I expect this committee will recommend.

Gen Maurice Baril: It's certainly a risk that is there, but I have great faith in my country and my government and all of you. I certainly believe the recognition will be made. It has been in the past the way to pay for increased costs and personnel, that the money comes from the centre. I guess I can state that.

• 1010

If we were asked to improve the quality of life of the members of the Canadian Forces to the level that all of you and my leadership think has to be done, with money coming from inside the defence department, we would have to do some pretty extensive looking at what we can do, and with what, within the Canadian Forces at that time.

But yes, expectation has been building in the Canadian Forces for over a year, actually, and they had a forum to say what they thought. What you heard was the truth. Some of it was improved truth, at that time, on a very personal basis, but it really doesn't matter; I think the basic facts have been aired in a very emotional way. The men and women of the forces are watching and waiting to see what is going to happen. They're looking both at us and at the government.

Mr. David Pratt: As a follow-up to that, Mr. Chair, have your senior staff been able, at this point, to even attempt to put a costing on some of the things it's likely we'll be recommending?

I know there are a lot of hypotheticals there because you don't know exactly what we're going to be recommending, but you've been listening closely enough to know what the issues are. Has there been any attempt to put a price tag on this, and can you also advise the committee on whether or not there have been any discussions at the departmental level, or at the ministerial level, for that matter, between DND and the Treasury Board?

Gen Maurice Baril: We have a pretty strong project team in place now—and we call it a project team that is about the equivalent of a major crown project acquisition process—to prepare ourselves for your report, to work with your research team wherever it is appropriate, and also to put in place the elements of the quality of life project that are within our authority and our resources. I can put a price tag on that; about $ 57 million now has been listed, that is within our capability, and that's when I said we had gone into all the account sheets to find money. On that, we have a price tag.

As for the other, the only thing I can say is that our team and our experts are certainly willing to and capable of working with your research team to start as early as possible to put a price tag on it. But yes, we are in contact with the Treasury Board. We have even seconded one of our personnel to Treasury Board, because this is a major crown project for us.

Mr. David Pratt: It is, but can I ask—to use the military term—have you had much success in terms of “softening the beaches” at Treasury Board?

Gen. J.M.G. Baril: I don't know.

Mr. David Pratt: Mr. Chair, do I have time for one more question?

The Chairman: You have 40 seconds.

Mr. David Pratt: The answer may take longer than the question.

General Baril, your comments talk about the issue of media coverage of the Canadian Forces, and I'm sensing a bit of a cri du coeur on behalf of the forces in terms of the treatment by the media. I know that's a sensitive subject at the best of times, but would you like to elaborate on that?

Gen Maurice Baril: No, but I will.

Nobody likes to be dragged onto the front page of a leading magazine or leading newspaper of our nation, but today it's the nature of the beast. A lot of it was our own making, so we have to take the hit.

Certainly, like any other organization, we would like to have the nation looking at us in a real balanced way, but that's unfortunately not the way the media works. But we have to live this way; we have to live in a very transparent way, whether we're on operation or at home.

Certainly in the good old days, when we were going into operation, we would come back and that would be the end of it. But now, whatever we do, and whatever any of my soldiers do, it ends up right on the TV set in the living room of my mother-in-law, instantly, and in the living room of the wives and the spouses and the children. They know exactly what we're doing.

• 1015

So all this media attention has an impact on the family and the level of stress of the family, which is very difficult. As I said before, there are a lot of good people out there, and when the title reads, “Rape is rampant in the Canadian Forces”, a lot of people don't like to be thrown into the same pot.

But that's the way it works now, and I think we have the mechanism not to deal with it but to ensure that our image is as clean as it can be. That's what the nation is asking of us, and that's the way it's going to be.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Axworthy.

Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar, NDP): Thank you very much.

My apologies for being late, but I did manage to read through what I had to I catch up on.

I want to thank you for your frankness and your completeness in the report. You make a pitch on behalf of your personnel for more resources. I think Canadians and all members of Parliament would support that, provided, I think, you can convince us and Canadians that this money will be well spent and that the significant problems that have been highlighted in the armed forces will be solved. I think you can count on our support through that process.

You say you've been scrutinized, even into the home of your mother-in-law—generally our fiercest judges, I would suspect; you'd probably rather she wasn't watching the TV when this stuff is on.

I want to follow up on a specific question about independence and an independent review of the conduct of the armed forces and then go on to a more general question.

You indicated that you're satisfied with the measures in Bill C-25, which will make the process a little more independent. Let me raise with you a specific question about Sergeant Nela Odarijew, one of the people mentioned in the Maclean's story. As you know, she made the claim that, amongst other things, she was harassed. The Human Rights Commission agreed with her and asked that the matter be resolved in a more significant way than was previously the case.

Is it not the case that your hesitancy to be more open, to have more independent investigations of things that go wrong, is because those who come from outside tend to be much more critical, as is indicated here by the Human Rights Commission, than indeed your internal processes would be?

Gen Maurice Baril: No. I think we have been given the tools and the capability to do the investigation inside. As I said previously, certainly like any other forces or any other large organization or any other police force, when the magnitude of the investigation—the size, the complexity, or the number of them—is beyond the capability, we, as the others do, will go outside and ask for help. We're quite ready to look at that.

You're bringing up a case, I think, that was raised in Maclean's magazine. It has been raised a couple of times. Let me give you an update on all those things, because the provost marshal and the minister have said that every one of those allegations would be looked at. The information contained in the two Maclean's issues has been taken seriously by us.

A thorough review of these investigations and information was conducted by the Canadian Forces provost marshal, and 26 cases were identified. Of these 26 cases, the following actions are being taken now.

Two cases will be reopened. Six cases will require further review of what had been done before. Fifteen cases are considered to be new allegations and will be investigated by the National Investigation Service. Three cases were determined to have been conducted thoroughly, and therefore no further action will be taken. So only three out of twenty-six have been judged by the Canadian Forces provost marshal as being closed. All the others are looked at.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: The fact remains that the Human Rights Commission suggested some action, you disagreed with the Human Rights Commission, and consequently no action has been taken. I think that type of thing raises some serious concerns amongst Canadians. Certainly you've heard it in the House. Last night's reports about a more recent rape I think indicates significant problems.

• 1020

Gen Maurice Baril: You just mentioned “a more recent rape”. Have you concluded the investigation on this one? Has anyone said that? We're talking of sexual assault, and I don't think it's right to qualify the investigation at this time.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: I said there were allegations in the media last night.

Gen Maurice Baril: I think it said sexual assault, not rape.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: I want to ask a more general question. Do you have the full support of armed services personnel?

Gen Maurice Baril: Yes.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: How do you know that?

Gen Maurice Baril: You asked me my feeling, and I'm giving you my answer, as cold as I can make it. This is actually a very difficult question to answer. I have 90,000 people across all three services. Whether all these here are supporting me—and I think they are—

Mr. Chris Axworthy: These would be, yes.

Gen Maurice Baril: I think those who are under their command are supporting them. If we go all the way down, then....

I don't know my cote de popularité. I really don't know how high it is right now. We don't operate this way in the forces.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: I know you don't operate that way in the forces, but we've heard, and we continue to hear, serious concerns from rank and file members of the armed forces. If you're not sure—and perhaps you have no mechanisms yet to ensure this—whether you have the full support of your personnel, then I would make a suggestion to you. Would you be prepared to have a plebiscite of your armed forces personnel to see what support you have?

Gen Maurice Baril: Are you kidding?

Mr. Chris Axworthy: No, I'm not kidding.

Gen Maurice Baril: I'm the military, appointed by the Government of Canada. Do you want me to behave like a politician in the Canadian Forces?

Mr. Chris Axworthy: I want you to ensure that you have the support of your armed forces, and I would very much doubt you do, in so many of these questions.

Gen Maurice Baril: Your opinion. Thank you very much.

Chief Warrant Officer Guy Parent (Department of National Defence): I would like to make a comment on that.

Gen Maurice Baril: Yes, we'll ask the Canadian Forces chief warrant officer to talk.

CWO Guy Parent: In fact, I represent 47,000 non-commissioned members of the armed forces, and I am the principal adviser to General Baril. I work through a communication network of chief warrant officers at different levels with the commanders here and at the very lowest level of small organizations. I certainly can confirm that the leadership of today, including General Baril, enjoys the support of the majority of the Canadian Forces personnel, certainly the non-commissioned members.

Obviously there are always some people who will not be happy with situations. That happens in every organization. But certainly there's no indication whatsoever that the leadership of today is in question at all from the non-commissioned members.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: But you have no way of finding out.

CWO Guy Parent: I find out every day. Last year I must have touched base with probably 20,000 people during my visits. I'm constantly on the road.

As I say, my principal function is to advise the leadership, just as it is the responsibility of my colleagues in my network team. We are constantly on the road investigating morale, talking about policies, talking about leadership, training people, informing people. That's our bread and butter.

There are always some people who will not be happy with changes and that type of thing, but it's not generally the case. We have full confidence in today's leaders.

Mr. Chris Axworthy: If I asked my staff if they liked me, they'd say yes as well.

Thanks.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Axworthy.

Monsieur Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning, gentlemen.

I thank you, General, for your report. I think it's an excellent report. You really have hit on many of the key issues that have come up.

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, I just want to mention that we're in the five-minute round right now.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I do appreciate it. You've been listening, obviously.

Now, the last time I said that to you was the last time we had you at committee. I congratulated you on the report you did. At that time I brought up the particular case of Master Corporal Dolhan, who was injured in a parachute jump. You assured us at that meeting that you would take care of this and make sure the situation was dealt with.

Well, I've kept in touch with Mr. and Mrs. Dolhan, and in the latest phone call—in fact, the day before yesterday—they indicated that things aren't going well at all. In fact, they are not being taken care of. And all they're looking for is, I'd say, some very minor assistance in having mileage paid, which has finally been agreed to, and some help with child care while Mrs. Dolhan accompanies her husband on his hospital visits.

• 1025

They have indicated that on at least three occasions, I think, Mr. Dolhan has been strongly “encouraged”—I think that's putting it mildly—to sign a statement about the events that led to the injury. The first time was in the hospital. There he was, very seriously injured, on his back, and there was a lot of pressure on him to sign. The latest time was early this week, and he's still on heavy medication.

And I'm concerned. You can have a very nice report saying the right things, like you have here, but at our last meeting—I don't remember how long ago now, but it'd be a month and a half ago, I would guess—you assured us that this situation would be taken care of. It hasn't been. So what you said would happen and what has happened are two entirely different things, and that causes me great concern.

I'd just like to ask you, General, if you have been following this case and if you're comfortable that what should be happening there is happening. If it isn't happening in this case, where you, before a committee, in public, said you were going to make sure things happen the way they should happen, then what on earth is happening to others who have been injured who don't have that kind of attention?

Gen Maurice Baril: I have been following it and I am not happy at all with the way it's being handled.

Monsieur Benoit, I take it for granted that you and I have the good of that family at heart. We can discuss this problem here in an open forum with the notes that I have here and with the discussions that I have had with the commander of the base up there and the commander of the unit, but what I would suggest, if you and I have the good of that family at heart, is that we take five minutes outside after this public forum and try to sort it out.

Monsieur Benoit, this is a family that is in a very difficult position. It is caught in the media, on the political side and within the military. And I think all three of us are trying to take care of this family, but it is extremely difficult for us who have the care of that family; we just can't do it properly right now.

So I would prefer that we get at it, but in regard to your question, you bet that I have been personally involved in this one.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you for that offer. I'll take you up on it. I really appreciate this, General.

For my second question, it's interesting that we've heard two Liberals here say that we have to spend more money on the military. But my concern is that I don't feel we know how the money is being spent now. The accountability just isn't there. It's too hard to really determine how the money is being spent now. I don't think the waste has been identified yet.

I do agree that in the end, I think, we're going to have to spend more money, particularly on our men and women and some equipment, but first we have to identify the problems with the way the money is being spent. I think that has to be taken care of.

But even on the basic issue of uniforms, I have the assurance of the minister in response to a question in question period—when I was talking about combat uniforms and how they're being collected so that the next group is properly clothed—that our soldiers would never go overseas again without at least proper combat uniforms and very basic personal kit.

Do you feel that's the situation now, that the men and women in our forces who are in Bosnia are properly clothed and have the proper personal kit, that at least that level of equipment is in good shape?

Gen Maurice Baril: I'll answer yes—and you'll probably give me four or five examples you heard two weeks ago that show that's not the case of Private Tremblay or Private Jones, that he doesn't have his five suits for combat or something like this. But yes, the answer is that the priority of all the equipment, not only clothing but everything that we have.... It is of course the priority of the ones who prepare and the ones who execute the task.

Mr. Leon Benoit: We're not talking about just five individuals here.

When this committee travelled to Bosnia and was in VK, we had a public meeting. There were maybe 200 people there. I don't know the exact number, but quite a large number of our men and women were there. We had two or three complaints, so then I asked the group to indicate by show of hands how many were really having a problem with their personal combat uniforms. One complained that his was worn out. Others complained that they just can't get uniforms that fit. And then later we got into the rucksack deal, which is a whole other issue.

But I asked those men and women to indicate by show of hands how many of them had either personally had uniforms that were completely unacceptable or had heard of others who had. A majority of the people in that crowd raised their hands. To me that was shocking. These are the men and women who are over there serving Canada, serving well, and they should not be put in that kind of situation.

• 1030

There are some other things along the same lines that I'll get into at a later date, but I'd just like you to respond to that if you can.

Gen Maurice Baril: It's certainly difficult to respond to that when, in the counting of hands, the one who should have combat clothing with a 36-inch waist and has a 34-inch or 37-inch waist or thinks it's not very well pressed because it's too old or something—

Mr. Leon Benoit: No. These aren't complainers. With all due respect, these men and women do not complain about small things. I haven't found that they are a bunch of complainers. I think the last thing they want to do is complain to anybody. And yet, there they were, going against what they wanted to do. They felt enough urgency in regard to this issue that they raised their hands and said they had a serious problem with the basic combat uniform.

Gen Maurice Baril: I don't agree with you when you say that we have a serious problem. We have a problem of distribution. We have a problem of replacement. We're in the process of spending $ 170 million on the clothing, the equipment, the load-carrying system, the flak jackets and all of this to bring it up to the new high-tech.... What we have in place is a fairly old system. We got it around 1965. But—

Mr. Leon Benoit: But the clothe the soldier—

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —uniform program has been in place for two full years now. It's two years from right around today that the program was first announced. A lot of money is targeted at it. Two years to get the proper, very basic personal kit for our men and women serving overseas? That is not acceptable.

Gen Maurice Baril: I agree. It's too long.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Richardson.

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

On that note, I'd like invite Mr. Benoit to a meeting next Thursday to take a good look at some of the equipment under examination for the troops in the Canadian Forces. The meeting will be held on Thursday and you'll be notified in due course.

That aside, General Baril, I wanted, through you, to thank all the members of the Canadian Forces who acted in advance for us at all the meetings across Canada and in the work in Bosnia, with its culmination here in Ottawa with the meeting of the personnel at National Defence Headquarters. We were well treated, and the efficiency and accommodation was always first-class. Thank you very much for that.

I was particularly impressed yesterday with an opportunity to speak with the career managers. We attended that meeting; all people were invited to attend, but not all did.

I was pleased with the swift reactions to things, particularly on the medical side, where the complaints were very strong across the country about the treatment, the delay and the time. I think the people in that area deserve a pat on the back for their swift response; they're able to turn around those kinds of concerns in a matter of days or weeks, not months. That was an eye-opener and it shows that there is flexibility and reactivity on the part of the career managers' shop.

This committee has generated a lot of anticipatory results among members of the forces, and I think all members on this committee, even those who may have some concerns here at this meeting, do know that there is a strong need to see that we do meet some of these objectives.

I think they know that we need the support of all members of Parliament, and particularly members of cabinet, to see that we can come forward with a plan that is well thought out and that will meet the needs defined by this committee and by yourself, sir, so that we can move into the millennium as a force that is not only mentally fit but has the equipment that goes along with that.

• 1035

It's my wish that that would be the result. But it will take some work and some work on the part of the minister to bring some people on side to support this. But I do believe and I appreciate the work of the fellows in the opposition who have been genuinely interested in seeing that the right things are done for the forces, as is the government.

It's not a question, basically. It's simply a salute to you and to the members of the forces. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Richardson.

Colleagues, I'd mention to you that we have a vote, 30-minute bells, that should take us to roughly 11.05 a.m., so we'll continue here until 10.50 a.m.

Mr. Hanger, for five minutes.

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

General, I'm pleased you brought forward some items in your report on compensation, benefits and accommodation, especially dealing with the housing problem. Of course, in all military housing, there seems to be a strong need to have...I don't know if replacement, or overview, or what is the appropriate word, but certainly reconstruction in some areas, especially of those houses that are considered condemned or well below standard.

We were fortunate enough in this committee to have witnesses appearing from the United States military who looked after the social side of things. It was interesting to note that their accommodation allowance, a basic package for personnel who lived on base, was zero, but so was their rent. They paid no rent. They were issued their basic pay but there were no costs on the rental side at all. So as long as it was military housing, they were living in it for nothing.

The big difference in the way that was handled south of the border was that the base commander had full control if there was a need to repair, to maintain or whatever, as opposed to an agency such as we have right here in this country. I think this poses problems if the commander doesn't have control.

I can certainly see, and I heard this expressed by some of the base commanders, that they feel they are losing their authority, in a sense, over all things that go on in that base. It's almost like a small town, in a way, and they simply don't have the control that maybe they need to fix that problem and to look after some of the immediate problems that end up in some of the frustrating examples we're hearing about right now with the housing agency we have.

I'd like your very candid opinion on the housing agency. Should we even have a housing agency? Should it not go back to the control of the base commander when it comes to that issue?

The second point I wanted to bring up is that for those personnel south of the border, after receiving basic pay they are also given an accommodation allowance, whether they choose to rent or whether they choose to buy, amounting to U.S. $ 700, and a variable housing allowance in accordance with their rank and the region of the country they've come from or are posted to. That variable amount is adjusted according to the cost of living that exists in that area of the country and is added to their basic pay, all non-taxable. They are non-taxable allowances.

You can sit back and look at that and recognize that it's significant. Here we have sub-standard housing, where they're charged rent according to what CMHC declares is the appropriate amount, with really no consideration to the region they live in. Here we give them accommodation allowance—triple-A is what it's called, I think—with some other variations in allowances, all clawed back in taxes. In a way, they're not really benefiting a whole lot from it. It's money being taken out of their pockets as opposed to being put in their pockets.

My second question, then, is what do you think of that arrangement for the military personnel here? Would it be feasible? If so, what would be the best arrangement?

• 1040

Gen Maurice Baril: I'll tackle your second question first.

I'm very glad you had a fairly high-ranking U.S. team here. Of course, we kidnapped them on their way in and on their way out and they spent the whole day with our personnel and looked at all those options you have mentioned. Their pay and benefit overall package is quite different from ours. In some places it is better than ours, in others it's not as good. But overall, they're in better condition than we are now; 15 years ago, I don't know.

Coming back to the first question, what you're proposing is what we had before. Housing was in the hands of the base and the different commands, and if the houses have kitchens that are 30 years old, it's because of the way we operated then. We didn't put the money into them. We put the money into ships, into airplanes and tanks. We didn't repair the PMQs. So we had housing in our hands, and choices were made by the leadership at that time to apply the money to training, combat boots or what not, and maintain the PMQ in a way that was judged acceptable at that time, 5, 10 or 15 years ago.

Directed by Treasury Board, we were told to get out of the housing business and they gave it to an agency. As was said by the CEO of the housing agency here, his hands are tied. We have given him a large number of houses, about 20,000 of them, and we have restricted his flexibility. He has to make the project live with only the rental income and it's not enough for him.

I think we have definitely moved toward the rental agency model, but it has to be much more efficient and guidelines by Treasury Board have to be customized to meet the requirements of that agency.

Mr. Art Hanger: The maintenance problem cannot be solved—

The Chairman: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off. We have two more people who want to ask questions, Mr. Clouthier and also Monsieur Lebel.

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Good morning, General Baril.

The first time you appeared before us, I was impressed with your candour and your commitment. More than that, I was impressed with your vision of the Canadian military. Let me say unequivocally that, so far, you've not let me down. You told me you were an impatient man and I said an impatient man is the right person for the job.

To comment on a few of my colleagues' remarks, I know my colleague, Mr. Axworthy, said that perhaps there should be a plebiscite taken on your leadership or on the leadership in the Canadian military. Well, let me say, General, and be on record as saying, that I wouldn't like it if you were all things to all people. Certainly, there will be some people under your command who do not agree with you. I would be very upset and perturbed if everyone did agree with you. You've got a job to do and you're doing it well, and let the chips fall where they may.

With regard to the remark to my colleague Mr. Benoit about issuing the kit, far be it from me to be a little kid telling stories out of school, but when we were over at VK we were issued the kit and, believe it or not, for a fine specimen such as Mr. Benoit, we had a difficult time finding equipment for him, especially the helmet. And I've got pictures to prove it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Hec Clouthier: We've got the pictures about the helmet. That's a story by itself.

My questions are twofold, I guess,

[Translation]

because my friend Mr. Lebel is very interested in

[English]

language training. We heard there were some difficulties with English and French language training in some of the bases, especially with the land forces bases, though it seemed to be a little better in the air force. I'd like you to comment on that.

Secondly, if you have time, with regard to promotion, I was very surprised the other day at the Lorne Building to hear a young lady come to the microphone and say that the career managers did their promoting in the military.

Could you make a brief comment on both of those, please?

Gen Maurice Baril: Language training, I guess, is like the public function of Canada; it's not perfect. For us, the training system is very far and wide-ranging all across the nation. It is at the national level, the command level and at the base level. I've been exposed to it a lot in my whole career and I agree it's not perfect. There is some difficulty here and there and people are changing. But I think it's adequate right now.

It's not only the training, it's the state of mind that we need to be a bilingual force when we reach a certain rank. It's also involved in career progression. Some people think that if their language training is not good enough, it has handicapped them for promotion. It's a little bit controversial, but I think we have it in hand.

• 1045

As for the other promotion, as I said to the gentleman over there, career managers execute decisions, they don't promote people. People are promoted through a promotion board, which we hold every September and October, and everyone who is promoted from private to corporal—corporal, actually, is automatic after four years—but you have a special promotion board for accelerated promotion right up to three stars. The board is promoting and career managers are executing the decisions.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Who would make up that board, General, do you know?

Gen Maurice Baril: It depends on the rank that the promotion board is reviewing. If it's master corporal to sergeant, for example, it would be a combination of officers and NCOs, and if it's a promotion from one star to two stars, it'll be all the three stars and myself as the chairman.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Mr. Lebel.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Lebel: General, this is not what I meant by my comment and I don't want you to leave here with doubts about your leadership. I'm telling you that we visited just about all of Canada. We heard complaints about the equipment. In particular, your mechanics complained about the Western Star trucks. But we never heard any complaints about your leadership and about whether or not you have been accepted within the Armed Forces. To reassure my colleague, I would say that you are in the right position. I just wanted to say this to you.

You talked about the good will of our soldiers. You said that the job of being a soldier was a vocation. I would like to tell you as well as the members of my committee that, during the course of our travels, I questioned soldiers. I recall that in Trenton, in order to test everybody's attitude a little bit, I would say: I have a payroll, a supply of money; either I use it for equipment, or I pay it to you in salary; what would you prefer? I expected to be told: "Well, we would prefer that you give it to us." Having worked in industry, I can tell you that if the mining company I worked for had made a similar proposal to us, we would have said: "To hell with the tractors, to hell with the equipment. Give the money to us as salary." I was surprised by the answer given by the members of our Armed Forces. I was told that: "We want to work with safe equipment, with equipment of the highest possible calibre. Of course, we're asking for salaries that are a little bit higher, but we don't want the lion's share. We recognize that we have professional work to do and that the equipment must be professional as well." I can tell you that the answer was professional.

Accordingly, I support what you have written. Rest assured that the other members of this committee and I will try to push in the same direction as you. I won't say any more because we have to vote. Thank you.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Benoit, you had one question and a very short one.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's again to do with care of the injured.

You've made a statement on page 7, and I think it's a good statement, that we need legislative endorsement to extend assistance to reserve force members experiencing post-traumatic stress disorder and such things. And you also said the Pension Act should be extended to all forces members whether the injury occurred at home or abroad. I think those are excellent suggestions. You asked for support of the politicians on these issues, and you will get it from us.

I have a very specific question. One thing we've heard very commonly from people who have been injured is that they have a difficult time accessing their own files when a complaint goes from DND to Veterans Affairs. They have to go under access to information to get their own files. I would like to ask you this direct question: will you change that?

Gen Maurice Baril: I will if it's within the rules and regulations and the law of the country. I'm not quite sure if the Privacy Act does not force us into doing this, but if it's only a bureaucratic problem, leave it to me, I'll fix it.

Mr. Leon Benoit: All they're asking for is their own personal medical files.

Gen. Maurice Baril: It's their own but.... I don't think we are that difficult. We might have been in the past. But I will have to check personally on this one to see if we're bound by some of the rules and regulations not only of the department—that we can change—but from outside the department, because, after all, they're Canadian Forces documents and we can't release them to anyone.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

Before you all go, I'd like to say a few little things. This session is drawing to a close, and as chair, I would like to thank all of you, my colleagues, for the time you have put in to help me out.

• 1050

I would also like to thank the clerk, the researchers and the support staff. I know when I first saw the travelling schedule I didn't think we'd be able to keep up, but as you are well aware, we did keep up and, I must say, we did a fine good job. Now we have to get to the report stage. As I said, I had my doubts at the beginning, but I know with our experience and the knowledge we have gained we will be up to the challenge.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much, General, and to the people who are with you.

This meeting is adjourned.