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]

Tuesday, June 2, 1998

• 1403

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.)): Good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to this portion of our SCONDVA hearings. This is the third hearing we've had in Ottawa. We'll be going until 5 p.m., and then we will be back here at 7 p.m.

I'd like to introduce some of the members of the committee: my colleague from the Liberal Party, David Pratt; and also my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, Madame Venne. Other members of the committee will join us as the afternoon progresses, so we should have a fairly full complement of members before the afternoon is through.

Major Girard wanted me to remind you that there is coffee at the back and translation devices as well.

There is also witness registration back there. If you'd like to make some comments, register and we'll be glad to listen to you.

Our first presenter this afternoon is Major David Chaplin.

• 1405

Major David Chaplin (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. I'm employed at National Defence Headquarters, in the directorate of reserves. I have served in the regular force, the militia, the supplementary reserve, and I am now a member of the National Defence Headquarters primary reserve list.

Except for a year as a public servant while I was in the militia some 25 years ago, the Canadian Forces has been the sole source of earned income all my life. I am in my 29th year of service and would have 23 years of pensionable, equivalent full-time paid service were it not for the situation I'm about to describe.

Before going to the Middle East as a United Nations military observer in 1992, I read the Canadian Forces personnel newsletter's first issue for that year, which announced:

...all former Regular Force members will be able to be in the [Canadian Forces Superannuation Act] after one year of full-time reserve service; not just members who are entitled to a [Canadian Forces Superannuation Act] annuity, as is now the case.

I am such a member, a non-annuitant ex-regular.

Shortly thereafter, in the debates of the legislative committee, the intent of the amendment was clarified by the Treasury Board Secretariat's director of pensions and special projects division, Ms. Sharon Hamilton:

At present, a full-time member of the reserve force who serves in that capacity for one year or more and is a pensioner under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act becomes a contributor after one year of full-time service in the reserve force. This had the effect of excluding from contributing under the pension plan people who may have been in the regular force and then transferred to the reserve force on a full-time basis, but who were not at that point entitled to a pension on leaving the regular force. So what we're doing is extending to those people the right to contribute under the pension plan.

When the act was passed in September of that same year, the actual wording read:

41(3) For the purposes of this Act, a person who, after having ceased to be required...to contribute to the Superannuation Account, is enrolled in or transferred to the reserve force shall, on the expiration of any continuous period of full-time service therein of one year, commencing on or after the day on which this subsection comes into force, be deemed to have become re-enrolled in the regular force at the end of that period.

In plain English, that means that after completing a year of full-time duty, I am considered re-enrolled for any and all concerns for the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act.

Upon returning from the Middle East in 1993, I began work as the senior logistic staff officer for Land Force Ottawa District. From that position, I followed from afar, with obvious interest, the slow and painful process of the drafting of the regulations, which was not complete until 1996, four year after the act was passed. You may understand my surprise when the fruit of that labour hit the street, and in a message dated November 13, 1996, the assistant deputy minister of personnel, aka the ADM(Per), stipulated:

...former contributors who are not entitled to any annuity can not become eligible to receive an annuity by virtue of any class of reserve service.

3. The Bill C-55 amendment...came into force on 1 December 1995. Thus, any former contributor who commenced class B or C reserve service on or after 1 Dec 95 will:

A. Be deemed to be re-enrolled on the expiration of any continuous period of full-time service of one year and

B. Commence paying contributions to the [Canadian Forces superannuation account] on the first day following deemed re-enrollment

Note: For those members not in receipt of an annuity who commenced class B or C reserve service prior to 1 Dec 95, time towards the first year only starts on 1 Dec 95

4. For former contributors who are not entitled to a deferred annuity, all [Canadian Forces superannuation account] contributions will be returned when the full-time service ceases.

5. To avoid undesired deemed re-enrollment for pension purposes and the payment of pension contributions, a formal policy is required to allow for a break in service....

6. Policy Statement: For those former contributors who are not in receipt of an annuity and who do not wish to become deemed to be enrolled in the regular force for [Canadian Forces superannuation account] purposes, a one day break in full-time reserve service may be authorized prior to the completion of one year of continuous full-time reserve service

In plain English, I have to pay pension contributions but cannot collect the pension, and I must take the evasive action specified to avoid having the contribution collected and the contributions to my RRSP, which I can draw from, capped, because I'm contributing to an employer-supported pension plan.

• 1410

I also have to do a year's work for a day less than a year's pay, which reduces my other benefits as well and complicates leave and vacation planning, as leave may not be carried across a break in service.

The act is silent on classes of reserve service. It does outline what kinds of reserve service may be elected by a regular as pensionable at various rates of equivalence. Part-time service counts as one-quarter of full time.

The ADM(Per) position insists that if a person serves in the reserve first and then in the regular force at the time of attaining annuitant eligibility, that person is eligible, but if that person serves in the regular first and in the reserve at the completion of the necessary time, that person is ineligible for an annuity.

It should be moot that subsection 41(3) is accepted at face value and the member is deemed to be a member of the regular force. ADM(Per) staff apparently do not accept it as moot.

A recent letter signed by the director of land personnel states:

Former contributors and the legislated one day break has had an adverse effect on every member that falls into this category. It is the Land Staff position that every measure should be taken to eliminate this policy given that it makes no sense and only serves to harm our personnel. As a direct result of the required one day break, pay for these members has become inconsistent as none of the current pay systems are equipped to handle such breaks in service.

In other words, it hurts our people. Get rid of it.

Even the implementation of this policy in the first instance was unnecessarily maladroit. The law was stated to have come into effect on December 1, 1995, but this regulation came into the hands of those affected a week before they were deemed to be re-enrolled. I got my copy on November 21.

The required break deprives them of all leave credits accumulated since the preceding April 1 and not taken immediately before the break—that is, if you had more than a week of leave left, you lost it—as well as the medical and dental benefits available to reservists on extended full-time service. If you have less than six months left in the fiscal year, you don't get those benefits.

I telephoned some of the staff whose names appeared at the bottom of the message in question. I received the following responses. First, “There was no intent to create a new benefit where none existed before”. “What about the article in the Canadian Forces personnel newsletter?”, I asked. I was told it was not an official publication.

“What about the stated purpose given by the Treasury Board representative to the legislative committee?”, I asked. I was told it didn't matter about the stated purpose if it is not reflected in the legislation, and the legislation is flawed. The only recourse is to write my MP, because they are the ones who write laws. The legislation is flawed because the Treasury Board Secretariat sent it over to DND with only 72 hours to review it. The DND team did not have time to review the whole act, just the amendments, so it did not find the conflicts between the proposed amendments and the act.

Finally, if I wanted a pension, why didn't I join the regular force?

The fact that the CF personnel newsletter would not have printed such a statement without prompting from those responsible for the policy was not recognized, hiding behind its unofficial status as a smokescreen. Calling the law flawed, and its flaws the fault of the Treasury Board Secretariat, is mere blame-shuffling. If indeed the law is flawed, which I do not accept, why was nothing said or done during either the seven months of legislative process or the four years of promulgation process to get it fixed?

The last statement begs the question and bespeaks a reprehensible attitude. Faced with that attitude, I shelved the issue until the opportunity arose to present to this committee.

As might be inferred from the army letter I cited earlier, my case is by no means unique. The last unit I belonged to, 33 Canadian Brigade Group Headquarters, based here in Ottawa, had 21 full-time military staff, of whom 11 are reservists, and 3 of those, including me, are non-annuitant ex-regulars. There are, at last report, 934 full-time reserve positions in the army. If—and I admit it is a big “if”—33 Canadian Brigade Group Headquarters is representative of the whole army, there would be over 200 soldiers in my position. However, one is too many.

A recent e-mail from the personnel policy staff last Thursday states:

Director General Compensation Benefits staff and others (including Director Reserve staff) are working on dealing with this particular problem and we may have it resolved sooner rather than later. I have been advised that a working group has been struck to review the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and propose amendments to it, and this working group has some relatively short time-lines. The Canadian Forces representative on the working group is well aware of the problem with former contributors, so I'm hopeful that we'll at least have that problem sorted out within the next 2-3 yrs;

• 1615

The director of the reserves representative has his desk beside mine and reports at the pension working group he belonged to. It's apparently been adjourned for months, with no date to reassemble. According to the jungle telegraph, that group, formerly led by Lieutenant-General Kinsman, the former ADM(Per), demonstrated a hostile and patronizing attitude to reserve access to any pension scheme. That hostility went as far as the disappearance of any discussion of reserve issues from agendas and minutes of meetings.

Given this situation, I am concerned about just what such a working group, with only one Canadian Forces representative, and not a reservist, will come up with in terms of proposed changes to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act as it affects reservists and former contributors. Nothing that group is doing has been passed on to the director of reserves for comment.

Given the foregoing, I don't expect it to do me any favours. I have less than ten years to compulsory retirement, and this issue has already been going on for more than six. I don't want to wait another three years to start contributing to a pension plan I should've started paying into in October of 1992, after the amendment was passed.

I find nothing in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act that justifies this position taken by ADM(Per) staff. The intent expressed in the internal CF media, and attested to in the legislative committee, is clearly reflected in the legislation, and if acted upon the way it is written, it would readmit all ex-regulars with sufficient full-time service to the CFSA.

As currently implemented, it is a hurtful, counter-productive, punitive measure that benefits no one and gratuitously afflicts and insults ex-regulars and the full-time reserve service. The current regulation thwarts the stated intent of the department, the avowed aim of the Treasury Board, and the express will of Parliament, and should be struck down. Let the law be implemented as it was intended, and enacted to confer a benefit.

Thank you very much for hearing me out.

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

[Translation]

Do you have any questions, Mrs. Venne?

Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, BQ): I would just like to say that your case is certainly a very complicated one. If this committee does nothing else but implement what you have explained to us today, it will have accomplished something important.

Thank you.

Maj David Chaplin: Thank you, ma'am.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Woods): Thank you very much.

Next is CPO Martin Gagnon.

Chief Petty Officer Martin Gagnon (Individual Presentation): Good day, ladies and gentlemen.

This afternoon I want to address the terrible state of the military redress system, mostly to the corporals and privates. To illustrate that, I'll use my own redress of grievance situation.

It all started with my wife's case. In 1990 my wife initiated a complaint of sexual harassment. Her name is Sergeant June Gagnon. Immediately after she initiated her sexual harassment case she was called in for a terse interview with the colonel and the CPO1. The interview lasted an hour and a half. Two days later she was called in for a second interview. She went in, and requested the presence of her assisting officer, Lieutenant-Commander Joanne Thibeault. Her request was denied, and she went in for a second intimidating interview.

Two days after that, she was called in for a third interview. She did not want to go. She was directly ordered to go in. She disobeyed the direct order and she was put up on charges. That's when I got involved full speed ahead, because she needed help.

Briefly, five years after that, she was sent to Croatia, and I had to handle her case with Human Rights at the same time I was handling my military redress attempt against two generals.

The phone call I received from Human Rights was that the deal they had with DND was that if it's sexual harassment with no touching, it's $ 1,000. Sexual harassment with touching, touching one breast, is $ 5,000. It left me wanting to ask if she would have qualified for a special package deal if he had touched both breasts and both cheeks of her bum—$ 15,000. Sorry about that, but my wife is not up for sale.

• 1420

During the last two years I conducted my own survey. I had the opportunity to talk with retired warrant officers and retired sergeants who were involved in submitting redress of grievances. They all had the same conclusion. One warrant officer, with 25 years of service, had to quit the forces because he got so frustrated banging his head up against the wall that he said, “To heck with it, I'm quitting.”

I have names. They even told me I can mention their names, but I'm going to leave that because I don't have time. I've got all kinds of stories.

I'm going to use my own case to show you what kind of situation the corporals and privates are in when they initiate a redress of grievance. I'm a chief petty officer. When I initiated my redress of grievance, I had 25 years in. I have 28 years in now. What I went through, what my wife went through—she is a sergeant—was devastating. Imagine a corporal now, with no time in and no military knowledge.

As a chief petty officer with the military knowledge and experience I had, I had to stand up and fight back this high-ranking officer. I did. So did my wife. Thank God she is so strong.

The corporals and privates that I will show you.... I will use some tactics that they used against me. The privates and corporals are sitting ducks. That's why you won't see one of the corporals tell a story like the one I will tell you now. It is because they don't have a chance. They'd get thumped.

First, they will use the silent treatment. That's my expression for it. I call it the silent treatment, and I have one example to tell you of. They will attempt to destroy your career first. I'll give you an example.

In the last seven years, since my wife's case, I had six postings. That's about one posting a year—one long-haul posting and five local postings. Don't forget, what it implies is that you're in a job for one year. You're in a learning mode, not in a producing mode. When you're in the learning mode you do not get a high enough score on your personnel evaluation report to keep going up on the married list.

After those six postings, I went right down the married list. So did my wife. The other thing they do, if they put you on six postings—I'm sorry if I have a strong British accent, but that's not my fault.

When you're in a learning mode you don't produce. At the same time that you get down in the married list, you also have to work your buns off because you have to learn a new job. They try to burn you out. They didn't burn me out. I am tired, yes, but they didn't burn me out. I've got ten more years to go and I'm planning to do them. I still have enough juice for the next ten years.

The next tactic—and it's all substantiated in my case that you have right now. I call it the pressure cooker. After the silent tactic didn't work, they put me into a pressure cooker. I initiated my redress grievance in May 1995. A month later I was put into a high pressure job. It was June 1995.

At the same time, June of 1995, my wife found out she was going to Croatia. They took my moral support away, because I had a heck of a big redress against a general. So my moral support was gone to Croatia and I was alone with the kids.

After I was in that job, at the same time I was handling that, my redress was going full blast. I was getting all kinds of memos from this commander that I had to reply to concerning my redress. I also had to handle the complaint of sexual harassment that my wife had with Human Rights, because she couldn't handle it; she was in Croatia, for Pete's sake. So I handled it.

Then I saw them coming. They were in the process of ousting me out of the forces. I was lucky enough to deal with two great gentlemen and a great lady, outside of the military, of course. I brought this up to them. I told them this is what's going on. I asked them, “What is your impression? I know what my impressions are but what is your impression?” All three agreed with me. They said, “Martin, you'd better do something and stop that action, because you're dead meat.” I said okay.

The next day I went back to the office and I made it known that one of the great gentlemen I was dealing with was Retired Colonel Jean Drapeau. Let me tell you something. Two days after I mentioned that they backed off and got off my case. My tasks decreased, so I could perform my job. Thanks to you, Mr. Drapeau, if you're in the audience.

They chose a military police officer at the rank of lieutenant colonel to conduct the investigation of my redress grievance, probably because I had a couple of generals on my redress.

• 1425

While my wife was still in Croatia, I was looking after my kids. I was handling my wife's case with Human Rights. I was handling my redress. In November of 1995 I finally received the military conclusion of the investigation.

First of all, I provided him with a list of at least 21 witnesses. He questioned seven of those 21 witnesses. Only one of them was a non-commissioned member. The six others were officers, and two of those officers had been promoted by one of the generals I was redressing.

Do you want to know what the conclusion was? Bear with me. Chief Petty Officer Gagnon decided to use a hot-gun attitude concerning his case. He is so personally implicated with his wife's case, he has lost all his objectivity and has developed a syndrome of paranoia. Yes, paranoia. I'm redressing two generals—of course.

I got in touch with a civilian lawyer and I told her to deliver a misdemeanour to that lieutenant colonel. That lieutenant colonel referred the misdemeanour to JAG. It's all in my case. JAG replied to my lawyer and said, “No, Chief Petty Officer Gagnon cannot sue.” I was ready with a $ 200,000 lawsuit for defamation of character, and nobody touched my reputation.

JAG said the lieutenant colonel was on a military tasking; therefore the chief petty officer cannot sue him personally. He has to sue DND. Yes, I'm a fool. I'd spend $ 50,000 to sue DND and they get their own lawyer, paid by the taxpayers, and I'd pay my own lawyer. I said to heck with it, it's too expensive.

The second tactic is as recent as January 1998. I call it destroying the link. I will explain what I mean by that. The reason why my redress of grievance is now with the Canadian Human Rights is because they explained to me that they would accept my complaint only if there is a link between my complaint and my wife's complaint. They found the link. They said, “Yes, Mr. Gagnon, you have a case. Why don't we handle your case?”

There is a section called the human rights section for the military. About six months later they replied to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I received that reply just before Christmas. Believe me, even if I was upset about the reply, I still spent a heck of a good Christmas anyway.

They had about six paragraphs in that reply. The first two paragraphs they only.... They knew I was not going to have a case with the Canadian Human Rights Commission any more if they managed to destroy the link. That's what they did. They concentrated on destroying the link between my case and my wife's case. They failed. I knew they would.

I went back with a three-page reply and I re-established the link. Human Rights called me back. They said “Mr. Gagnon, don't worry. Yes, they tried to do that, but the link is still there.” They have now told me they will start the investigation within the next few weeks, so I cannot talk about the specifics of my own redress so as not to jeopardize the investigation.

It made me wonder that the human rights section of the forces are not there to address the issue of the complaints. They are there to destroy the bloody complaint.

I'm not a negative person; I've got some recommendations. They're talking about an ombudsperson—not an ombudsman, an ombudsperson. I would recommend that a woman civilian with no previous link with the military—to avoid the bias—be chosen as ombudsperson. It should be a woman. To protect the privates and the corporals in the terrible situation where they want to initiate a redress grievance, the ombudsperson should go immediately against those silent treatment experts that I had the bad chance to meet.

Hire a big, bold-attitude person to protect those corporals and privates. I mean a pitbull of a person, in the sense that if a corporal initiates a redress grievance and knows he is going to get the treatment of silent experts, that pitbull can go as a guard dog after that person and bite that person so he's going to scare the others and they will stay away.

• 1430

In conclusion, after 25 years of service as a chief petty officer—28 years now—I was placed in this situation because I fought for my wife who I had to morally redress; as chief petty officer I put a redress in. Yes, I'm a human being, too. I found that hard. I did. But, thank God, I was not a corporal who had to redress.

I have one address to the CDS, General Baril:

Sir, for the last six months I had the chance to talk with a lot of serving corporals and senior NCMs and I can assure you we are convinced that you're faithful and very sincere when you say you're going to work your heart out to improve the system and the morale of the forces.

[Translation]

We are all behind you, general.

[English]

In closing, I have closing notes, personal notes.

In the second ship I was on, HMCS Saguenay, I had the great chance to work with the best chief petty officer 1st class I ever met in my career, Chief Petty Officer Stanley Faulkner. Unfortunately, he passed away with a heart attack. He was the coxswain of the ship and he always told me, “Martin, on board the ship, the officers are the brain. The ordinary seamen and the master seamen make the ship sail. We, the chief NPOs, are the backbone.”

We have a lot of great officers in the forces, but unfortunately we also have some real bad apples. I have a personal message to those bad ones. I dare you to hurt your backbone.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, CPO Gagnon, for summarizing your brief. As you know, we've just had a chance to see it, so we will obviously have a chance to go over it. We thank you for being here and summarizing.

I believe Madam Venne has some questions.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: I can understand that it is very upsetting for you to tell us what happened. That is probably why you spoke so quickly and I had trouble understanding everything you told us. You packed quite a lot into a very short time and I can certainly see why.

I would like to ask you one or two question to clarify things a bit. I would like to know what was finally done about the sexual harassment of your wife? Was the person involved eventually punished? I did not catch when that was done.

CPO Martin Gagnon: When my wife filed her sexual harassment complaint, she embarked on a process that took four years.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: And what was the upshot?

CPO Martin Gagnon: General de Chastelain wrote her a letter saying he believed her. He fired the major who harassed her. The captain received a severe reprimand and applied for release. The chief petty officer, 1st class, received a pay reprimand. The colonel, however, was not punished for his intimidation and abuse of authority, and that is why my wife took her case to the defence minister at the time, Mr. Collenette. She pursued the case with another defence minister, Mr. Doug Young. She received replies from Mr. Collenette and Mr. Young. The latter took no action against this colonel for his intimidation and abuse of authority.

If I may, Mrs. Venne, I would like to point out that, while she was undergoing these very intimidating interviews, I got in touch with a military lawyer, Major Hersst in Gagetown. I told him what was going on, and he told me that it was very obvious that there had been intimidation and abuse of authority. But Minister Young did nothing.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: And the colonel you mentioned is still there?

CPO Martin Gagnon: No. He applied for release—and maybe it was a coincidence—two weeks after my wife went to the minister's office.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: So, it apparently took four years to resolve this case. That is what you saying.

CPO Martin Gagnon: Four or even five years.

• 1435

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Right. If we understand what you are telling us and if we make the connection with what we have read ourselves in Maclean's recently, we can easily understand that unfortunately, a member of the forces, particularly a woman, must first have the support of their spouse and then be extremely persistent if they are to be heard, which is incredible, I grant you.

At the end, you were saying that a woman should be appointed to the position. To whom were you referring?

CPO Martin Gagnon: There is talk now of hiring an ombudsman.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: You would like an ombudswoman to be hired?

CPO Martin Gagnon: Yes, absolutely. I have my reasons. After the Maclean's article on rape, and what we are still seeing these days, there are clearly many cases of sexual harassment and women are usually the victims. My wife, as well as female corporals and sergeants with whom I have recently spoken, all told me the same thing: "We would feel a lot more comfortable filing our sexual harassment complaint with a woman". That is understandable.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Fine. We will pass the message on to the minister.

CPO Martin Gagnon: Thank you very much. No more questions?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Chief Petty Officer Gagnon, I have just a quick question. You keep talking about protecting the corporals and the privates. What's the reason for that? Do you think the corporals and the privates always get a raw deal in redresses of grievances? Is that—

CPO Martin Gagnon: I have an answer for that, sir. I just told you briefly—of course you have more stuff on my case—about what my wife went through as a sergeant and what I went through as a chief petty officer. They know I have a lot of knowledge and experience and that I can stand up and fight back. But the corporal doesn't have that. The corporal doesn't have the rank and doesn't have the leadership experience and the military knowledge. So that corporal needs help. That's why I'm saying that, and I feel very comfortable in saying it.

I've seen six cases of corporals who were divested. One of them had a nervous breakdown. A woman corporal in Trenton—I heard the story from a master warrant officer I know—was sexually harassed by a captain on a road trip. She didn't complain. She was all alone and she didn't have enough men to fight for her. She ended up on an MPHL listing—that's a hospital listing—with a nervous breakdown. Don't you think the corporals need some help?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Obviously, if that's what's going on, sure. We've never heard of it before, that's all. That's why I asked the question. Thank you.

CPO Martin Gagnon: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I would like to welcome David Price. David is the Conservative Party defence critic and has joined us this afternoon.

David, thanks for being here.

We would like to call on CPO Colette Sabourin.

Chief Petty Officer Colette Sabourin (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon, mesdames et messieurs.

I am employed here with the maritime staff in Ottawa. I would like to talk to you about education opportunities for non-commissioned members.

Even though non-commissioned members are always encouraged by their supervisors and their career managers to upgrade their education, I feel the department doesn't fully support those who wish to upgrade their education. Even if upgrading is taken to improve our jobs, which in fact ends up improving the efficiency of DND, DND doesn't fully support us at all.

I'm employed as a resource manager in the directorate and I cannot be fully reimbursed for the courses I'm taking that are leading to a degree in resource management. All I'm entitled to is 50% of the cost of the course, and this amount is taxable, so in essence I end up with very little.

For me it's not a big problem to pay the $ 300, but our sailors out there don't have $ 300 for an upfront cost, especially when they know that their reimbursement is only going to be approximately 50% for this course.

That is not the only problem they face. In a lot of cases, they don't have the time to take these courses. If they sign up for a course, they don't know if they're going to be off fighting a flood or an ice storm or whatever. There are many things like that.

Correspondence courses are of course an option, but I'm sure everybody is aware that it is not the best way to get a college or university degree.

Support for education upgrading for non-commissioned members is clearly lacking in the military. There's no doubt in my mind about that. In these days of equality, it's not understood why a civilian member of DND taking the same course that I am can go to his or her boss and, because it has something to do with their job, be reimbursed 100% for the course while I'm not.

• 1440

I would like to see, at the absolute minimum, 100% reimbursement for a course that will benefit me in my job and that will, in essence, benefit DND. I'd also like DND to review all the college courses that are out there now and see which ones will benefit non-commissioned members. Maybe some of all this money that they're spending to educate our officers can be used to start educating our NCMs.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Chief Petty Officer Sabourin.

Are there any questions?

David.

Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Chief Petty Officer Sabourin, did I hear you correctly when you said that officers get reimbursed?

CPO Colette Sabourin: They have a lot of different opportunities compared to us. They can apply for post-grad. They can go to school for a year or for two years, I think, depending on what degree they're taking. They get full salary and full reimbursement for tuition costs. If they have to move to a university, DND is prepared to move their families, their F and E—even their pets—to the place. I'm not entitled to that opportunity unless I want to become an officer. In most cases, non-commissioned members don't want to be officers. If we wanted to be, that's how we would have joined up.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you.

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

Mr. David Price (Compton—Stanstead, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We had heard in some of the other areas that anglophones seem to have an easier time getting French courses than francophones do getting English courses. Can you comment on that?

CPO Colette Sabourin: Do you mean if I wanted to get a college education—

Mr. David Price: Yes.

CPO Colette Sabourin: —to get a French course?

Mr. David Price: Anything—going from English to take French courses to improve your French and taking courses in that line as compared to going the other way.

CPO Colette Sabourin: I don't understand your question.

Mr. David Price: On other bases, we heard that complaint from the francophones who wanted to take English courses and were having a hard time getting access to them. They were saying that their counterparts, the anglophones, were having a much easier time with respect to applying for and taking French courses.

CPO Colette Sabourin: I don't think that's true. I think francophones, when they join the military, are—

A voice: It was the other way around.

Mr. David Price: I'm sorry. It was the other way around. I knew there was a difference there.

CPO Colette Sabourin: I don't have that problem. I was “born” bilingual, but I do know that any francophone that joins the military is automatically.... I think all of them are trained in English. But anglophones do have a problem getting access to French courses. It is a big problem.

Mr. David Price: Was there any ease, one way or the other, as far as applying for other courses, like if you wanted to apply, let's say—

CPO Colette Sabourin: No, not at all. The language is not an issue in this case.

Mr. David Price: The language wasn't an issue?

CPO Colette Sabourin: Not at all.

Mr. David Price: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Chief Petty Officer Sabourin.

CPO Colette Sabourin: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I'd like to call on Patrick Bernath.

[Translation]

MCpl Patrick Bernath (Individual Presentation): Hello. My case is a special one and I do not know whether anyone else in the Canadian Armed Forces is in a similar situation. It is a medical case. I was in the forces from February 1988 until last April, and I served as a reservist for three years, from 1985 to 1988.

I served with the Royal 22^e Régiment in Valcartier, in the first and third battalions. In April 1996, when we were getting the boats ready for a UN mission to Haiti, I had an accident. They had to operate on my shoulder and I have been disabled since then. Since then, I have been in temporary medical category G303, which means I cannot go on assignment or anywhere else. Because of this handicap, my contract was not renewed. Instead, I was given six- month extensions, without a contract.

In January 1997, I was with the third battalion as a master corporal and my CO decided to take me to Haiti despite my medical downgrade and the fact that I was not supposed to go for operational reasons. I therefore stopped my treatments and left for Haiti in April 1997, returning in October 1997.

• 1445

In Haiti, I worked as an information photographer. I think I did a good job, because I was one of 15 people who received commendations out of a total of 700. During my military career, I always more than met the standards, my PERs were always above- average and I never had any problems on the work side.

On September 8, 1997, a boat sank off Montrouis, in Haiti, with 260 people on board, 200 of whom died. President Préval asked the Canadian camp to help the Haitians recover the bodies.

As an information photographer, my job was to take pictures for the files, and so on. On September 9, I therefore went to the accident site and boarded one of the two boats. One boat remained stationary and Canadian divers went down to collect bodies on the bottom and tie them to a line. There was another boat with eight members of the Haitian coast guard who were supposed to take the bodies from where the boat had gone down to the shore, where people, including Red Cross representatives, were waiting.

I was given the job of taking file photos and, since no journalists had access to the site, these photos were also going to be used for the newspapers. I got into the boat that was ferrying back and forth and which contained the eight members of the Haitian coast guard. As soon as the first three bodies were brought out of the water, these men did not want to pick them up for fear of all sorts of things, including voodoo. The CIVPOL police who were there asked me to take charge of the boat and the recovery operation.

For the whole day, from 10.30 a.m. until 4.30 p.m., I brought in 32 decomposing bodies all by myself. Two of the Haitians who were on the boat gave me a little help. It was a very difficult day, and I am still haunted by it.

On returning to camp at the end of the day, I began having problems. including difficulty sleeping and concentrating. I had trouble dealing with the whole experience and the fact that I had had all that blood and gore on me. For three or four days, I had a great deal of difficulty coping and, after four days, I went to see the doctor. He immediately diagnosed it as the beginnings of post- traumatic stress related to the incident I had been through and prescribed medication for me.

There was not really any way to help us there. All I could do was keep working my 14 to 18 hours a day and wait three weeks, until my assignment was over. In October, I was sent back to Valcartier with the rest of the unit.

The day after my arrival in Valcartier, while everyone was heading off on holiday to take advantage of their return, I ended up in hospital in Valcartier. I saw a physician, a psychiatrist and a therapist. Starting then, I had to take six pills a day, and plans were made for me to begin therapy.

I began seeing a social worker, who had no idea of what I had been through and who was not doing me any good. I asked my attending physician to recommend another social worker or a psychologist qualified in post-traumatic stress disorder who could help me.

In the meantime, my unit had returned from holiday, and my CO ordered my medical file transferred to my unit doctor, who was not there. During the two months I was having problems, he was never there to help me and he never followed up on my file. My doctor telephoned to tell me that my unit doctor was going to take the file. That was not what I wanted, because I had already seen a therapist, a doctor in Haiti, another doctor in Valcartier, Dr. Cooper, and a psychiatrist in Valcartier. My whole file was going to be transferred to another doctor because, in the forces, the unit doctor—because I belonged to a unit—is the one who has to take the file.

• 1450

I objected, but to no avail. They transferred my file, which delayed my appointment with a therapist for two months. Finally, my appointment was set for January. My accident had taken place on September 9, 1997. My first meeting with the psychologist took place in January.

In the meantime, Dr. Cooper had given me sick leave for the Christmas period, but my CO turned it down. That is how things work in the Canadian Armed Forces. A doctor recommends leave, but an infantry commander has the authority to decide whether or not he will authorize it. In my case, he turned it down. This CO, whom I had never seen, and whom I have still never seen, decided that I should instead use up my annual leave. The armed forces now require that we use up our accumulated leave. It was therefore decided that I would take my accumulated annual leave over Christmas.

I was therefore given an annual leave pass with my six pills a day. I went back to my family, in Montreal, and I went through hell because I had not yet started therapy. On my return from Christmas holidays, I had my first appointment with the new doctor. I had not yet seen the psychologist, and the new doctor decided that I should go back to work.

It was agreed, however, that I would do so gradually, depending on what I was up to, since I was not sleeping. I am still not sleeping. I do not sleep at night because I have nightmares.

I therefore began working again. At that point, my unit left for Montreal to help with the ice storm. I therefore lost my doctor again, the doctor they made me see. Once again, I was without a doctor. I therefore went back to the one I was seeing before. That was fine with me. Because of a shortage of staff, my unit decided to have me work overtime, for a total of 12 hours a day, including weekends, for 14 days in a row. My health was not up to it. I complained and they told me: "You are going to work the weekend anyway". They called the Montreal doctor, whom I had seen only once, and he said: "Yes, he is fit for work and he can work weekends and do overtime.

That brings me to January 18, a Thursday, when they told me I was going to work the whole weekend. I could not do it any more. My nerves were shot. My health had been going downhill since my return from Haiti because of the continuing stress. I therefore went to see my doctor and told him that they were making me work overtime. He sent me to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist said: "No overtime". My CO still told me I had to go back to work.

So I applied for my release from the Canadian Armed Forces, because I had had enough and my health was more important than my career. I applied for release on a Friday morning, the day after I had been told I had to work all weekend. I put in my application at 8 a.m. and at 11 a.m. I already had an appointment to begin the release process. I was released on Thursday of the following week.

When I began the medical part of the release process, the doctor who had been seeing me from the beginning found the whole thing completely ridiculous. He recommended an additional two weeks of sick leave so I could get back on my feet. He said I had decided to apply for release because I was under stress and very frustrated. He gave me a certificate for two weeks of sick leave to postpone my release, and my CO, who is in Montreal, again turned it down. The next day, I went back to see the doctor to tell him that my sick leave had been turned down. He signed another certificate the following day. I took it to my unit and again asked for two weeks of sick leave. Again, my CO turned it down.

I no longer had any choice. I was discouraged. All I wanted was to get out of there. I was completely frustrated. I went to see the chaplain. I told him the whole story. This is supposed to be the way to go in the Armed Forces, but it rarely works. I told myself that, at the worst, he would know what I had been through, and people would have some idea of what had happened to me. The chaplain was not able to do anything either. I was released the following Thursday. I was put on terminal leave, which includes all my accumulated leave and annual leave.

• 1455

The famous Christmas sick leave pass had disappeared when I was forced to use up my annual leave. In the end, I took leave at Christmas. I was not on sick leave or annual leave. I was on unauthorized leave. I have no idea why the pass disappeared. I have my suspicions, though.

I was on terminal leave until March. The Valcartier doctor thought it was completely nuts to let me leave like that. He called me at home and referred me to a social worker doing a Master's in post-traumatic stress disorder in Saint-Jean. He saw me in Saint- Jean. Since then, I have been in therapy with him.

I was released from the Canadian Armed Forces on April 8. In the meantime, I applied to Veterans Affairs, which recognized my post-traumatic stress with a 25% disability, which is the maximum they can give. I was seen by two Veterans Affairs psychiatrists, who recognized that my condition was serious and becoming chronic, in other words, it was not going away. It was not temporary. These two psychiatrists told me they did not know when I would be able to go back to work, but that it would certainly not be before September of this year. As far as the forces were concerned, however, I was fit to work and do overtime in January.

Right now, I am living on unemployment insurance and I consider myself very lucky. I have four months of sick leave with unemployment insurance and then I will go on welfare. If I am not well enough to go back to work, I will live on welfare. I will get $ 500 a month starting in August.

My career was going extremely well. My record was excellent. I received a commendation in Haiti and a letter of thanks from the representative of the UN secretary general. My record is spotless. But, back in Canada, I am treated like shit. What could I do? What choice did I have but to apply for release? Stay in my room and hang myself? That was about the only choice left to me, and then I would have become a statistic of the Canadian Armed Forces. They say the suicide rate in the armed forces is the same as in the civilian community. In combat arms, there is a high suicide rate and I think it has a lot to do with the difficulty of the work.

I consider myself lucky to be a strong person. Otherwise, I do not know where I would be today after everything that has happened to me. I came here to share my experience, because I read your article on quality of life and the two investigation reports that were done with respect to people who went on UN missions on the Internet. I was sorry not to have been able to take part in your hearings when you went to Valcartier, so I came to Ottawa to tell you what I have been through. That is all.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Mr. Bernath. We appreciate your being here and sharing your experiences. Obviously it took a lot of courage to do that, and we thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

David Price.

[Translation]

Mr. David Price: I think you implied it, but did you feel you were forced to leave?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: It would be easy to tell you that I am unable to interpret things but, the day I handed in my memo, the people that took it were perfectly aware of my state of health. They knew very well that it had been agreed that my return to work would be gradual. They laughed in my face and told me that I would do the overtime because there was no one else to do it. I explained my situation. I showed them the psychiatrist's reports saying that I should not do overtime. I put in my request for release and, when the captain I had been dealing with throughout the process saw me, he wrote on it that I had considered my decision carefully, which is completely false. That is an easy way of looking good on paper.

Did people do this on purpose? Was all this done deliberately? I cannot tell you. What I can say is that I never had any support. The only person who wanted to help me was the doctor looking after me.

Mr. David Price: Is that what you felt they were doing to you?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I felt completely betrayed. I gave them everything I had. The infantry is a bit different from the general army. You join and you really give it your all. We give our lives around the clock, seven days a week. If it is not the native crisis, it is the ice storm or UN missions. There are the exercises at Gagetown and Wainwright.

• 1500

We are always away. We give it everything we have. As long as they can get the maximum out of us, they do, but the day we are the least bit unfit or disabled—

They took me to Haiti. I was disabled. I was a G303, and the forces could decide to kick me out of the army the next day because of my medical category. But, in their view, I was fit to be in an operational setting. In Haiti, I was in an operational setting, but I was not fit for Canada. I was completely unfit in Valcartier.

They took me to Haiti. While there, I again gave my maximum. I truly did. What happened to me, happened, and then everything fell apart. I warned them, however. I said I was not well and having trouble. The only person who wanted to help me was my doctor. The only person with authority over my doctor never saw the man. They never saw me either, but they decided to turn down my three sick leave passes. The result today is that I am no longer in the army, I no longer have a career, my shoulder does not work properly, I have post-traumatic stress disorder and I do not know when everything will get back to normal. I will never be what I used to be and I have no idea what will become of me.

Mr. David Price: Thank you very much.

[English]

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

Mr. David Pratt: Master Corporal, you still have problems with your shoulder, then, obviously.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I was operated on for a capsulorraphie, so they locked my shoulder so my arm wouldn't get off of it any more. I cannot go further back than this. I can do everything in front but cannot put my arm behind my back, because of an accident that happened in the armed forces. That injury will cost me jobs in civilian life, because there's nowhere I can pass a medical for a company, with the shoulder I have.

Now, with my post-traumatic syndrome, it is diagnosed for the army as post-traumatic syndrome, but the civilians will take it as depression. With depression, again, there are thousands of jobs, such as working at the casino, that I cannot do because I have depression. So I don't know where I'm heading.

Mr. David Pratt: Sir, can you tell me if you're going to any sort of treatment right now for the post-traumatic stress?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I have two therapies per week, one by a psychiatrist who was recommended by Veterans Affairs and another by a travailleur social who works at Saint-Jean. I have to go two days per week, one in Saint-Jean and the other in Montreal, to do my therapy.

Mr. David Pratt: Do you find that's helping?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I find it very difficult. The psychiatrist says if I had only my post-traumatic syndrome, that would be something I could, with time, pass over. But with all the amertume I have from everything the force did to me since then, it's going to be very hard to pass over, because I have a lot of pain inside from the treatment I received.

Mr. David Pratt: Do you still stay in touch with the others who were serving with you in Haiti? Do you have any contact at all? Do you know if they have similar problems?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: For the divers, I know there's one girl who had problems. There's one policeman who dived too. He works for the RCMP and he works with crime scenes, and he's used to taking out people who are dead. He's having problems too.

For my part, I know I have a great deal of problems. We were the ones at the scene. The other military were behind the scenes. Every time I brought back corpses, I gave them to the Red Cross; I didn't give them to the military. I was there from 10 o'clock in the morning to 4.30 in the afternoon, digging out corpses that were in decomposition, with all the blood pouring over me. I had one pair of gloves for all day. The gloves were cut, so I had cuts on my arms and my hands, and their blood was getting into me. It was a horrible day.

Since then I have problems sleeping. I have problems concentrating. I don't have any concentration at all. I have a lot of problems.

I did a redress over all this. I could have done a redress while I was in Valcartier getting treated, but I couldn't wait a year or six months for it to get solved while I didn't know where I'd be. So I left the army. But before the date of my release, I put in a redress and waited for a month and a half for reception papers. After a month and a half, I called the authorities, and they had lost my redress, so they had to look for it. So it's not even started yet. It has been two months since I've handed in my redress, and nothing has started. I have six months to wait, and then there's another panel, if they want to put it higher. So I don't know, I'll have no news for six months, for sure, and maybe a year, on what's going to happen with my redress. And I have no faith at all in the news I'll get.

• 1505

Mr. David Pratt: Reflecting back on things, do you think an ombudsman might have helped in your—

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I did complain to the ombudsman even before I did my redress. The ombudsman is General Cox. He's the ombudsman for the land force.

I know he's going to work on what I told him. He took all the papers; I sent him a piece of my redress. He's going to change the system, for sure, with what I told him. He asked questions: why I was allowed to go to Haiti, with my shoulder, when the paper said I wasn't allowed to; why an infantry officer can decide, over a doctor who did studies in health, whether or not the guy should have his medical leave.

I am sure he will take all those questions into consideration and ask the proper questions to the right people, but that will give me nothing. That won't solve any problems I have. It's just maybe for future generations in the forces. For me, the ombudsman changes nothing. He checks everything and he tries to change the system, but he cannot change what happened to me. He's not allowed to do a real investigation, asking real questions. He's just there to know what happened and to try to change it, and I'm sure he will do so.

I read in a memorandum that was sent to Saint-Jean, and probably to all the bases in Canada, that from then on—and that was a month ago—the doctors will not recommend any more.... On a leave pass, a doctor will no longer make a recommendation but an approval.... So the COs of the unit won't have the choice of refusing or approving.

Maybe that's a change because of me and because of what the general did. I don't know, because I haven't been informed about that, but I saw that memo. So if my case were today instead of in September, there's no way my CO could refuse my three leave passes. I probably would have been taken care of and I wouldn't be here today.

Mr. David Pratt: Thank you for speaking to us today.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: You're welcome.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): What happened to your commanding officer who took you there from Valcartier? You don't mention him too much. What happened?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: Every two years we change COs. His time was postponed because of the UN tour. When we came back to Valcartier, instead of going on vacation, we had to do a parade for three days to change our CO.

We changed COs from Lieutenant Colonel Brisebois to Lieutenant Colonel Tremblay when we came back from Haiti. So my old CO went to SQFT in Montreal, and the new CO arrived.

That guy, I don't know; I never worked with him. I never saw him. I know where he comes from in the army, and he made decisions about my life and my career without seeing me and without asking me questions about whether or not—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): You said you were there all by yourself. Where were the rest of your colleagues when you were doing this? Are they not there as a back-up or some support? How did it happen that you ended up there all by yourself?

MCpl Patrick Bernath: There were divers. The divers were onshore, and by a team of two they were taking a little plastic boat to where the boat had sunk. There was a boat there, static, with two policemen on it and a warrant, who are qualified for deep diving, because it was deep diving, and they stayed on that boat.

I was told to go on the other boat to take pictures, and because that boat was going up and down, I could take pictures everywhere. So I was alone with those eight Haitian coast guards to do photography, and when the three bodies....

My men were under the water taking out bodies that the Haitians didn't want to retrieve and bring back to shore. So the guys on the boat said, “Patrick, you'll have to take over, because we're doing a job and they don't want to help. We can't just leave the bodies here, just take them out and leave them 150 metres offshore.”

• 1510

So I took charge. They didn't want to take the bodies out, so I led by example and I took the bodies out. I have always had problems with dead people and I have always been scared of dead people. I had to do that. When I came back to shore I was looking for help, after the first time I came back. But when you're full of blood and it smells so bad and you take dead bodies out of a little trench—une civière.

You know, I don't blame my friends for not coming over and saying, “Patrick, I'll take your place.” The harm was already done to me and I didn't want to put it on someone else. So I stayed there all day.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Madam Venne.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Earlier, in answer to Mr. Pratt's question, you said you had met with an ombudsman. Surely not, because he has not yet been appointed. I think he will be appointed next week.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: In the land forces, they appointed—

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: This individual probably has another title.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: The Chief of the Land Staff handles complaints. He does the same thing as an ombudsman, but just for the land forces.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Except that he has no authority.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: He has authority to ask questions about what happened and to try to change things. He does not conduct a real investigation with a view to punishing people, but an investigation whose purpose is to find out what happened and to try to change the system.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: There is no doubt that an ombudsman would have greater authority. I hope so, anyway.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I do not even know what a union is. I enlisted at the age of 18. Before we heard about the ombudsman, I did not even know what the person did. As a member of the infantry, being able to speak directly with a general—I had to really push myself to call because it was something new. There is a chain of command and, unfortunately, soldiers, corporals, and master corporals get stopped at much lower levels. If I had gone through my chain of command, I would have had to go over the head of my colonel, who is the person directly related to my problem. My case would never have gone any further, and I do not know where I would be. I had to leave the forces. Now, as a civilian, I can do as I wish, including coming here today to speak to you.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: The military personnel in the hall are also supposed to be able to speak openly with us. I hope that is what they will do.

MCpl Patrick Bernath: I am sure they will. I certainly hope so.

[English]

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

Mr. David Pratt: Perhaps the master corporal could leave his name, address, and telephone number with the registrar at the back.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next is Master Corporal Suzanne Charest.

[Translation]

Master Corporal Suzanne Charest (Individual Presentation): Hello, members of the committee.

[English]

My name is Master Corporal Charest, and my spouse and I are both members of the military. We have two children. My spouse has been in the forces for about 16 years. I have been in the Canadian Armed Forces for 10 years. We both joined because of the life the CF offers us, and we both plan on making a career in the forces.

However, my spouse was posted to Bagotville in August 1996 and I stayed here in Ottawa. For two years we've been separated. We know of other cases that have been resolved in less time. We would like to know why there are different treatments for members. Why aren't we all treated the same and given the chance to be reunited? Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Who made those decisions, Suzanne? The career managers?

MCpl Suzanne Charest: The way the forces work we are dealt with by career managers, and we have two different career managers because we're in two different trades.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): They both denied you and your husband getting back together. They both denied, obviously, your request, right?

MCpl Suzanne Charest: Of course they did. Yes.

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

• 1515

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: What reason was given for denying your request?

MCpl Suzanne Charest: What happened to us was this. My spouse was transferred because his position at the QETE welding school was raised to the level of sergeant. Since he was a master corporal, he could not continue to occupy the position and had to leave. At the time, we had been here for only three years. Back then, in 1996, there was supposedly no justification for transferring me.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: I imagine that you cited family reasons for wanting to be with him, and this was not taken into account.

MCpl Suzanne Charest: No, not until now.

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Suzanne, we've certainly heard lots of horror stories about situations a lot like yours. I believe we're meeting with the career managers tomorrow, so it should be an interesting time. You're certainly not alone. There have been a lot of other families in your situation, and hopefully we can try to point them in a different direction. It will be interesting tomorrow.

Thank you.

MCpl Suzanne Charest: Thank you, sir.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next to appear is Mark Paine.

Mr. Mark Paine (Individual Presentation): Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, it's a pleasure for me to be here. I'm a strange animal, as it comes to standing here in front of you. I was a reservist. My significant other, to use the politically correct terminology, is a member of the forces. I'm also a civil servant with the Department of National Defence. So my perspective is coming from a number of avenues towards you.

There are four things I want to discuss very briefly with you. You've probably heard all of this before in your deliberations across Canada and the trip you took recently to Bosnia. These issues are reserve force, pay inequities, quality of life, and the last thing is what I'm going to call ownership. The term is “ownership”.

First, the reserves. When I was in the reserves from 1981 to 1985 the flavour of the month at that time was reserves were treated very much as second-class citizens. We were the part-time soldiers, the weekend warriors. The contribution we made to the forces was really laughed about by members of the regular forces. Again, we transferred that to the cadet instructor list. So it was just a displaced sort of thing.

The reserve forces have made an extremely important contribution to the CF and to the defence of this country, as we have seen throughout our history, and DND has just recently introduced the reserve force gratuity package, which recognizes the service of these members and the importance of their service. But the one thing that is failing in that is the question of pensions.

As a public servant, if I stay in the public service for a number of years and then I leave, I receive a pension. When members of the forces serve 20 years and leave, they receive a pension. As far as the reserve force gratuity program is concerned, if you retire from the reserves after a number of years you get a lump sum cash payment based on the number of years you have in service. Is that equitable, given the regular force pension? I think the answer to that is probably no. That comes with a price tag, however. That's a different issue and I'll get into that later on.

Pay inequity. You have heard, no doubt, of the pay inequities between the private sector, the public sector, and the Canadian Forces. To equate the job that a master corporal or a sergeant does to a bus driver in any city is ludicrous. These are the people who carry out the foreign policy that you people sitting at the table establish in the House of Commons. These are the tools that you people use to do this, and to equate their jobs with something like that is just ludicrous. They need to be remunerated for the efforts they put in. There's no doubt in my mind about that.

Third is the quality of life. The quality of life within the forces, the morale, etc., is also impacted upon by the amount of money that this department has to conduct its activities. In terms of the white paper of 1994, which was looked at again in 1997, and about which the minister said, yes, this is it, this is exactly what we're doing, from 1994 to 1997 the budget of the department was slashed, the number of people to do the jobs was slashed, yet there was no change in the policy of the white paper. The tasks are still there. They still have, broadly, three missions: to defend Canada, to defend North America, and to contribute to national peace and security.

• 1520

None of those roles has gone away, yet you've taken people away and you've taken money away. That impacts upon these people. In effect, you will have rust-out of the people and the equipment, and that is something you people who are sitting at the table must be aware of and must do something about.

On quality of life and taking care of our people, the department used to be a leader in this country in one specific area, and that was the drug and alcohol education prevention programs. We were on the cutting edge of that. The Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse came to us to look at our models, as well as Imperial Oil and the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba. They were all interested in what we were doing. With the budget reductions, that program is now gone. We have gone from five addictions clinics to one, and from what I understand that one may well be closing shortly.

Within the House of Commons a lot of people say, “Well, you know, you guys over in DND have to get this tooth-to-tail ratio down. You have to get more tooth and less tail.” The cost of quality of life is very much a tail issue. In effect, you may be seeing an increase to the tail. Is that something that's palatable to the House? I don't know. That's something you people will have to address, but that leads to something I call ownership.

You've heard from people across the country. You've heard the good, the bad, and the ugly, and the onus is on you now to do something about this. The expectation is set, in that you've heard the stories and now you have taken ownership of these problems. The only thing I can do is urge each one of you to put aside whatever politics you may have to work together for the betterment, not only of the CF but of the country in general.

Thank you.

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

I believe Mr. Pratt has a question.

Mr. David Pratt: I have not so much a question as a comment, in terms of the issues Mr. Paine has raised here of pay inequity, quality of life, and budget slashing. I guess the only thing I can say with respect to your comments on each of those items is that I agree, I agree, I agree.

Mr. Mark Paine: The federal government has to take issue with the deficit, there's not doubt about that. The CF recognizes that the deficit has to come down for the good of everybody. We understand that and we have taken our fair share.

I think you will find there is no fat left, although the taskings are still there for people. We still have deployments worldwide. It looks like we're going to be in Bosnia for at least another three years. I think the Brits and the press were saying five years. It comes with a price tag, and it's up to you to decide where that money should go. Does it go to hepatitis C, does it go to AIDS, does it go to replenishing the cod stocks? Where does that money go, what are your priorities, and what is important? Are these people behind me important to you or not? If they're not important, send them all home, but if they are important, give them the money and the tools to do the job. That's all I'm trying to get across.

Mr. David Pratt: If you've been following the work of this committee over the last five months, you'll know that all of us here have pretty much taken a non-partisan approach to this, with respect to the politics of it.

Mr. Mark Paine: That is where the difficulty now comes for you, in that you have to turn around and convince your caucuses that this is important and they too should put aside any partisan politics and get on with the job. That's where your role clearly lies.

Mr. David Pratt: That's part of the educational process that I think attaches itself to the work we're doing. It's a challenge that I think all of us have accepted. The only disagreement I would have with your comments is that I don't think the quality of life issues are so much about building the tail of the organization. Quality of life issues—and we've heard this from many people across the country—relate directly to operational readiness and combat capability. If you have happy soldiers, airmen, or sailors in an operational theatre, that bears directly on how effectively they are able to do their jobs. If they're not worried about the roof leaking at home back in Edmonton or Gagetown, or the problems their wives are facing with day care issues and that sort of thing, that translates directly into performance on the job.

Mr. Mark Paine: The well-being and so-called happiness of the soldier has a direct impact on the operational effectiveness. The tail I'm talking about is that it costs money for those supporting mechanisms to be in place.

• 1525

Mr. David Pratt: I don't disagree.

Mr. Mark Paine: When it comes time to say “Call your wife”, there's a big price tag to that.

Mr. David Pratt: But there's an element of truth in there too.

Mr. Mark Paine: Absolutely. It does impact directly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much, Mr. Paine.

Mr. Mark Paine: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): As you can see, Mr. Clouthier has joined us, so we welcome Hector to the panel. It's nice of you to drop by this afternoon.

The next presenter is Captain Gwen McEachern.

Captain Gwen McEachern (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon. First of all, I'd really like to say it's a pleasure to speak before you, and thank God we have a forum like this. In the history of my parents, my grandparents and my time in the military, we certainly have never had this opportunity. I think you're doing a great job. When your reports come through, our office looks forward to reading them.

I've served in the Canadian Armed Forces now for 17 years on 10 different bases, and I've enjoyed my time in the forces. I'm happy I made this decision. I currently work in the directorate of accounts payable, pay and pension. I'm the pay procedures staff officer. I'm sure you've heard a lot about pay.

Today I would like to talk about our incentive pay program. In the Canadian Armed Forces, every year you get another incentive. Captains happen to get ten incentives. So for ten years, you keep earning more and more money.

In the Canadian Armed Forces we also have this person who has absolute control over your life—a career manager. Career managers promote you, move you, and do anything they want to your career. They're very powerful individuals. I think I am right and I'm entitled to my opinion.

When I started in the military, I was a non-commissioned member, and I was selected for the university training plan for non-commissioned members. I went to the Royal Military College. I was given a vested right to my pay as a non-commissioned member, meaning I would not make less money when I went through my training program as an officer.

At the point where you become a lieutenant and then you're promoted to a captain, your career manager decides the day on which you're promoted. Some career managers have chosen to make that date your anniversary date, which would be May 1 for a great deal of us, because if you come out of the military college it's always May 1.

Some career managers choose to make that date May 2. When a vested-rights individual is slotted into the captain IPC levels and you are promoted the day after, you are slotted into a higher IPC level than if you are promoted the day before. It might sound really insignificant to talk about being promoted on May 1 or May 2, and really for a lot of people it is insignificant.

For a great deal of those in the ROTP it just doesn't matter—that's the regular officer training plan. As a vested-rights individual it means $ 1,680 a year less for me, and it will mean that for the rest of my time as a captain, and it could mean that disadvantage carries on into my pension. This affects approximately 50 members every year, and we've had this program for many years so far.

There's an inequity. Some career managers are promoting on May 2 and giving their individuals the advantage of a higher pay scale for the rest of their careers. Some career managers are not doing it at all. Then we have a third group of career managers who may do it for one lieutenant but not for another.

• 1530

In pay procedures, I'm the one who's forced to discuss this with the individuals involved and say, “I'm sorry, but your career manager promoted you on that day. I really can't help you out.” Yet the person doing the exact same job, sitting right next to him, is now making a higher wage just because the career manager decided to do this guy a favour and give him his incentive pay level another notch up by giving him a May 2 promotion. I really think this is unfair.

I think there's a lot that is unfair about the pay system, but today I'd like to address that. If I might make a suggestion, I really don't care which way it goes. Either promote us all on our anniversary date or promote us all the day after our anniversary date. But all of the career managers in the Canadian Armed Forces should be doing the same thing to all of their people. I don't think it should be “Oh, I know Lieutenant Navy Smith so I'll give him May 2, but I really don't know Lieutenant Navy Bloggan so I'm not going to give it to him.” I think that's very unfair.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you, Captain. Are there any questions?

Mr. Hec Clouthier (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Lib.): Captain, correct me if I'm wrong, but in listening to your deposition, do career managers actually do the promoting? Is that right?

Capt Gwen McEachern: Your file goes to a career manager review board. They rank everybody and a decision is made to promote 50% or 70% of the people. They may promote 10 people into a major job or whatever, depending on your classification and what type of job you do. So many files go there, and they decide that these top 15 people will be promoted. The files go back to the career manager, and the career manager is the one responsible for issuing the promotion messages, so he has the power to make it either May 1 or May 2.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: How high up the ladder does this go in the military skills? Does it apply to the commissioned officers also? Could a career manager say they want a brigadier general to go up the ladder? Is that what you're saying?

Capt Gwen McEachern: No. When you have a person with vested rights who has been in a non-commissioned member rank previously and then becomes an officer, there are pay implications on their promotion date.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: So the career manager would just be involved in the escalation of the pay and not in the escalation of a person from a captain to a major.

Capt Gwen McEachern: He cuts the message as to whether you will be promoted on May 1, May 2, or any other date. It's his job to be responsible for that individual, and some career managers are advantaging their people by making it May 2.

Mr. Hec Clouthier: Okay. It's the first I've heard about it. I'm just very surprised.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Captain, do all these promotions come in that period in May?

Capt Gwen McEachern: In logistics we have a 70% promotion rate, so most people in logistics, if they have good performance appraisals and were good lieutenants, become captains on time. On time means you have to spend three years as a second lieutenant, and then you enter what's called a promotion zone. When you're in the promotion zone you're eligible to be promoted. We enter that zone on May 1. So most people will get promoted on May 1 if they're in the top 70%.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): So you're saying you'd like to see something obviously standardized so everything is—

Capt Gwen McEachern: I would like a policy statement for all career managers to follow that they either promote everyone on May 1 or promote everyone on May 2. It really doesn't matter to me which way it's done. It should be equitable to all vested-rights individuals.

• 1535

Voices: Hear, hear!

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

Next is Captain Renée Forcier.

[Translation]

Captain Renée Forcier (Individual Presentation): Hello, members of the committee.

Tomorrow, you will meet with career managers and I would like to express a point of view that concerns them more particularly. I will give a short introduction and speak about policy changes in career management that can affect the careers of military personnel now serving, and about education.

From now on, all officers recruited by the recruitment centre will have to have a B.A. We know that a clear majority of officers now in the forces do not have a B.A. When I say a clear majority, do not take me literally. I think that approximately 40 per cent of officers do not have one.

In order to compete for promotions, courses and so on, we have to get our B.A. on a part-time basis, which takes an average of three to six years. A person can do this only if they are not overworked, do not take part in UN missions and so on, and it is also difficult to work around the demands of a family.

Members can also take part in a university program for officers, although only a small majority get in. Naturally, there is the question of money. To some extent, this echoes what Sergeant Sabourin was saying earlier about non-commissioned members. The same holds true for officers with a B.A.; there are not many of them. The situation is pretty much the same. I will not be talking about graduate students, just about those studying for a B.A. Even at that level, we have to pay for our education.

I would like to know what mechanisms have been planned so as not to penalize officers without a B.A. when they are receiving career counselling. It is now possible to take courses within the forces, at the military college for instance, but even then there are limits. It has just opened. Many courses are offered, but they are so overcrowded that many of them are not accessible.

I cannot speak for anglophones but, as a francophone, I have to take certain courses in English because they are not yet offered in French. I am allowed to do my assignments and exams in French, but I am still obliged to take the courses in English.

When we are transferred to a base, we attend the local civilian university, and when we are transferred to another base, we have to ask the new university to give us credits for courses previously taken, which they often refuse to do for policy reasons. Each time, we must start all over again. It is very difficult to obtain a B.A. if you do not already have one.

The armed forces took us on without a B.A. to become officers but we will not be able to compete with our fellow officers who have a B.A. when they enlist.

That is the point I wanted to make. Tomorrow, when you meet with career managers, it would be interesting to ask them what they intend to do about this. Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you very much. Are there any questions?

Master Seaman Rockwell.

Master Seaman Norman Rockwell (Individual Presentation): Good afternoon.

I'm here this afternoon to raise four points that I've noted as of late essentially in my own situation. These have been brought to bear concerning monetary funds and so on.

• 1540

One of the things I've noticed since I moved from Newfoundland to here, in particular from CFB Gander to Ottawa, is that because of the moving expenses I've incurred and the extra allowances I have been given for real estate fees, to cover costs of moving, and so on, when I submit my income tax forms for the following year, the child tax benefit I receive for the three children I have is going to be adjusted downward accordingly.

My wife and I both worked in Newfoundland, and of course I'm still in the Canadian Forces to this day, but she lost her job when she moved, because she's a nurse. She worked for the four years we were there, and her income was lost. But when we come to putting both our incomes to Revenue Canada, automatically, regardless of what we do this year or the lost income, our child tax benefits are going to go down.

I don't know what that means for a lot of people, but I take these funds and use them directly for my children's education. I save them in a scholarship fund, University Scholarships of Canada. In July, when they do the reassessment, all of a sudden I'm going to have to start putting a lot of my funds into this. I've made the basic contributions according to what I've been getting each year, but because of the extra income, I'm going to be penalized this year. I've been told that frankly by Revenue Canada and by other people.

My only avenue of appeal is to go to the Deputy Minister of Finance. Well, I'd like to be able to speak to you about that this afternoon, and hopefully you can raise that. Being penalized for moving isn't very fair.

My second point is on the Public Service Health Care Plan. When you're a member of the Canadian Forces, you get to claim 80% of your drug costs from the insurance company, with you paying 20% of your drugs. This is fine. In Newfoundland, where I lived, all the pharmacies had a policy whereby when you reached your deductible limit—which is currently $ 100 for a family—the next visit would be a 20% call.

I have three children, and of course, as everybody knows, they get colds and the flu. I have one handicapped child. Costs add up in a hurry.

When I called the insurance company itself, I was told there are government agencies that carry insurance deductible cards, and that when these people walk in to pay for their insurance, medicine, medical equipment, and so on, they only pay the 20%, because their card tells the pharmacy that their deductible has been reached.

This program, I've been told, is under study by the secretary of the Public Service Health Care Plan and the board of management, care of the National Joint Council at P.O. Box 1525, Station B, Ottawa, Ontario. There's no phone number for this agency, as they don't accept calls from members, so we have no avenue of appealing to find out. The insurance agents I spoke to directly mentioned that it would be at least two to three years or more before these cards can be issued to regular serving members of the Canadian Forces.

Again, quality of life comes in. Expenses add up, and it just comes right back out of your pocket.

The third point I have this afternoon is on incentives for members in trades that are not promoting. For the last four years, as was previously mentioned by other speakers, you've seen budgets being slashed, personnel being slashed, and so on, and the morale of a lot of younger people in the forces, at the seven-, eight-, and nine-year level, is deteriorating. You're just not seeing the incentive to work for promotion. Therefore a lot of people are unfortunately developing bad habits and bad ideas, such as, “How soon can I get out?” I'm seeing that more and more each day.

The suggestion I wanted to bring up this afternoon is that there has to be an incentive program. I'm not talking about a monetary incentive program, because money is so tight these days, but something along the lines of rewarding a member who has been serviceperson of the year on a particular base or whatever. Perhaps flight tickets on service air could be given to them and their family to travel wherever in Canada service air flies, or other incentives, such as certificate recognition or other things so that people can be recognized by their peers. When all else fails, being assessed by your peers as a leader would be a real incentive for most people I know—and it's the only really practical one I can see these days of economic restraint.

• 1545

The last point I want to bring up this afternoon is the accommodation assistance allowance, a very controversial topic, given the fact that you get a lot of bitter disagreements. This allowance is paid to people on various designated bases to help them in their home allowance—living in military housing—because of the cost of living index where they're going.

The only problem is that in a high index area only certain people get it. People who live on the base get it. People who don't live on the base do not receive it. I've been told that's due to the fact that you're paying money directly into home equity and you cannot do that.

For someone like myself, who is at the basic $ 40,000 pay level, moving out of base housing into a $ 110,000 or $ 120,000 home means that right there you're just about doubling your costs immediately, what with the mortgage, the land taxes, and everything else.

I'd like to see a standard policy adopted. I don't want to take away the benefits for people who live in military housing—I've done it myself for many years—but as an incentive to help us get on to a second life.... For example, I've been in the military for 15 years. If I retire in five years, I need to build up equity, buy a home, and start a second life. In order to be able to do that and acclimate, I'd like to know whether the committee will be recommending whether or not this allowance can be recommended for homeowners.

Those are my four points, folks. I appreciate you giving me this time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Thank you for your presentation, Master Seaman Rockwell. You've certainly made a lot of points. I can't speak for some of the other members of the committee, but we've certainly heard a lot about the triple A situation with the accommodation assistance allowance, and I would imagine that there will be some type of recommendation forthcoming. I certainly can't guarantee it. I know we have heard a lot of dialogue on it. There is a chance, obviously, that it will be in the report somewhere.

Madame Venne has a question.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: In some places, one being Esquimalt, if I remember correctly, we were asked to recommend a cost-of-living rather than a housing allowance. It was suggested that there be an allowance when a certain cost of living deemed to be average was exceeded. For example, the cost of living is much higher in Esquimalt than in Halifax, and there should be a supplement for military personnel that go to Esquimalt. The allowance would not be just for housing, but to cover the cost of living, which is higher there. Would you find that satisfactory?

[English]

MS Norman Rockwell: Yes, most wholeheartedly, because living in the Ottawa area, a beautiful area with all of the facilities that are here.... It becomes a very expensive area to live in because of its desirability and the cost of housing, which is going up, as it is in Esquimalt. I know British Columbia is even more expensive to live in.

But that would be the ultimate recommendation—to be able to give an assistance allowance to people who are making the effort to live in high-cost areas. That would be most helpful. Thank you.

[Translation]

Mrs. Pierrette Venne: Thank you.

[English]

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

Thank you very much, Master Seaman.

MS Norman Rockwell: I have one question for you, sir.

• 1550

In regard to Revenue Canada and such, is it possible for this committee to approach the ministry on the initial point I brought up in regard to moving and such and the loss of income and so on? That's not for my particular case but for general purposes and for Canadian Forces members in general.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): I'm sure it is.

MS Norman Rockwell: Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Next is Corporal Shannon Armitage.

Corporal Shannon Armitage (Individual Presentation): Well, this will be quick, because he stole half my questions.

I am with the Atlantic activity section here at NDHQ. I got posted here last fall from Edmonton, Alberta. Being a single member, I was living in barracks after I came back from a UN tour. I was told I was posted to Ottawa and I thought that was all right. Upon inquiring about the posting, I was told that all the barracks there had been destroyed and I didn't have a place to go to. I was told that I'd have to live on the local economy or apply for self-help housing, which had at least a year's waiting list. Since then it's changed, I believe, but then it really didn't give me an option—rent or buy my own home.

Upon looking at the pittance we're given as triple A, at $ 85 or $ 90 a month, I believe—somebody can correct me if I'm wrong—which after taxes goes down to approximately $ 80 a month, I figured that if I was going to flush $ 400 or $ 500 down the drain I might as well do it and buy a cheap condo. So I lost that.

When I was looking up some of the requirements for getting triple A assistance, I found out that while as a corporal I make so much, not only does it go up with rank and family but it gets to the point where a general will make about $ 400 a month.

I don't have a whole lot to complain about because I live all right, but it seems to me that's a double standard. If you're expected to live off your pay and if they're going to give assistance like triple A, should it not then be higher for the lower ranks who get paid the least? If we're expected to stay the ignorant masses we were a hundred years ago when your corporal was somebody you plucked right off the farm, if they want us to look like we live like that still, that's fine, and maybe that's why they have only this.

But I can't even afford to update my education because I'm paying everything I have on bills. At the end of the month, I might have $ 20 left over to rent a couple of movies. So let alone worrying about getting reimbursed, I can't even afford to pay for it in the first place.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Corporal.

Next is Major Jacques Girard.

Major Jacques Girard (Individual Presentation): Mr. Wood, Madame Venne and members, I would like to make a suggestion. One of the air force hats I wear is that of looking after official languages. In Bagotville we give courses for English-speaking people who are posted there and in Cold Lake we give English courses for francophones posted there.

We have rules. The maximum number for a course is eight people. If we have four military people on the course, we can take four spouses. If we have three military people, we cannot run the course, although we would have seven spouses who we could teach the second language to in order to help them.

It's a quality of life issue. What is required are funds so that I could run separate courses for spouses. In other words, when we have spouses on a course—let's say that we have four military, four spouses—the spouses are not tested at the end of the course. They tend to miss one or two sessions, and it really disturbs the military personnel who are on the course, because when they come back, the teacher has to go back two or three lessons to explain to them what they've gone through. It really disturbs the military members who are taking the second-language training.

• 1555

If funds could be made available, we could run these courses separately for the spouses. I think it's a quality of life issue for anglophones posted to Bagotville that their spouses learn enough French to function in the area and perhaps find a job. It's the same with Cold Lake or Moose Jaw or elsewhere.

I don't know if the navy has a problem and I don't know if the land people have the same problem, but the air force is experiencing this problem. These are suggestions I'm making.

I have no beefs. I've had 30 years of good, clean service—I think. A little help from you people on that issue would be appreciated.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Woods): Major, how much money are we talking about when you say funds to run it? Do you have any idea of a ballpark figure of how much money it would take to run courses like this? How many courses are run a year and how much?

Maj Jacques Girard: We're looking at about $ 40,000 a year per course. That's a year-long course.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Correct me, I could be wrong, because we've certainly heard a lot of testimony in the last four or five months, but in some cases I didn't think the military allowed spouses to take certain courses or to attend courses.

Maj Jacques Girard: We do in the air force. As I mentioned, I don't know about the navy and the army.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): Yes, maybe I'm confusing the two.

Mr. David Price: The information we had, at Petawawa in particular, was that the spouses couldn't take them.

You mentioned Cold Lake and Bagotville. What about Moose Jaw?

Maj Jacques Girard: It's the same in Moose Jaw.

Mr. David Price: The courses are available there as well.

Maj Jacques Girard: Yes, throughout the wings of the air force.

Mr. David Price: All the air force.

Maj Jacques Girard: Yes.

Mr. David Price: Does this apply to anything you have in terms of small bases, because we visited some small bases that perhaps were not air force? What about Goose Bay, for instance?

Maj Jacques Girard: Right now it's part of our budget in the air force.

Mr. David Price: And the courses are available there?

Maj Jacques Girard: They are available, but if we have more spouses than military members, then we can't run the course. Even when spouses are on, the problem is sometimes they miss a few classes and the teacher has to go back and it causes problems.

Mr. David Price: Actually, I can understand that, but from what we've heard across the country, sometimes a lot of the military are already bilingual but their spouses aren't, and that's where the problem is. They have a hard time integrating into the population because of the lack of language.

Maybe it would be important that we do look at it in that sense and that we push more for the ones who need it—the spouses themselves.

Maj Jacques Girard: Yes, it certainly would help.

For instance, in Bagotville, in terms of running a French course, it's hard to find more than four military members who require French training. I cannot run courses in Bagotville for the spouses in French because of these little rules we have.

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

Thank you very much, Major.

Maj Jacques Girard: You're welcome.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bob Wood): That concludes the list of speakers we have for this afternoon.

We will adjourn and we will reconvene here tonight at 7 p.m. Thank you all again for coming. We appreciate your attendance.