• RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT TO THE CANADIAN FORCES

CHAPTER I
FORGING AHEAD

RENEWING OUR COMMITMENT TO THE CANADIAN FORCES

Since the end of the Cold War, our Canadian Forces (CF) have undergone dramatic change. Bases have been closed, the defence budget cut, headquarters consolidated and the forces radically downsized. Between 1994 and 1999 the defence budget will have been reduced by 23%, down to $9.25 billion from $12 billion. When inflation is taken into account, this represents a 30% reduction in real purchasing power. The operating budget for the year 2000 will be approximately 50 to 55% lower than forecast in 1987. Personnel reductions have been in the order of 30%, to approximately 60,000 members. And, the civilian workforce will have been reduced by 45%, down to 20,000 from 36,000 employees.

The irony of all this is that, while the peace dividend has been vigorously pursued, our troops have faced an increased pace of deployment and found themselves in far greater conflict-ridden situations than ever before. Stories told by today's peacekeepers are more reminiscent of the "fire-fight" in the Medak Pocket than of walking the "yellow line" in Cyprus. Increasingly, our troops have been asked to do too much with too little.

All Canadians have had to cope with program cuts and the vagaries of economic adjustment. The Department of National Defence is not the only one to have been downsized. However, while we accept that all Canadians have had to sacrifice on behalf of economic recovery, we firmly believe that our service men and women have borne more than their fair share of the burden. The peace dividend is not one in which they have shared.

The consequences of rapid downsizing, during a period of intense operational tempo, have proven significant for Canada's military. Our personnel have been confronted with,

• economic hardship;
• inadequate housing;
• an increase in high-risk operations with equipment that was old and ill-suited to the task at hand and that does not inspire confidence;
• career stagnation;
• increased time away from home;
• multiple moves on short notice; and
• a perceived lack of public recognition for their efforts.

While much of this holds true for the public at large, it is important always to remember that our military functions under the conditions of unlimited liability. Serving members are deployed at a moment's notice to any theatre of conflict and are asked to put their lives at risk in the interest of us all. With respect to the Canadian Forces, the foregoing has made for poor morale and a sense of abandonment.

Such conclusions may be rather stark, but it was because of a "sense of something not being right" that we were asked to undertake our study on the quality of life in the Canadian Forces. Our study marked the first time, in the history of the Canadian Forces, that our serving personnel were encouraged to address their concerns in a public forum, and to do so without fear of recrimination. While some may have remained reticent, because they feared reprisal, the majority were anything but. However, when some incidents were reported, the Chief of Defence Staff issued a letter reaffirming that CF personnel could freely and openly communicate their views to SCONDVA. The transcripts of testimony bear witness to the fact that our hearings were open and that the opinions expressed were offered without hesitation. In addition to public hearings, we were also able to speak privately with our service men and women on numerous occasions. Again, our conversations were frank and open.

Hearings were held at major bases in Canada and at Canadian locations in Bosnia and Germany. Wherever we went, we were impressed with the professionalism and dedication to service shown by members of the CF. Although many told us of their particular concerns and frustrations, it was very apparent that "duty to mission" was their first priority.

While our main concern was with the non-commissioned ranks, we also heard of the frustrations among officers who have been forced to make hard choices that could never prove popular. Maintaining operational readiness - the raison-d'être of any fighting force - often meant that needed resources had to be diverted from housing, or other base infrastructure, that could have a direct bearing on the quality of life of the everyday soldier. Such decisions can never be easy, yet again, all agreed - officer and enlisted personnel alike - that duty first meant dedication to mission. All too often, the lament became: "we will take on whatever is required of us, but, give us the needed tools".

At the outset, some of us may have felt that ours would be a rather technical and matter-of-fact inquiry. It quickly became apparent that such would not be the case. We could not have guessed at the depth of malaise felt by many. We could not have envisioned the degree of frustration and desperation expressed by countless witnesses. Often the stories we heard proved heart wrenching, making us wonder how things could have gone so obviously wrong.

We will not soon forget testimony such as that of Major Bruce Henwood who lost both legs to a land mine in the former Yugoslavia. His fate was tragic, not only because of the injuries he received, but also because of the way he was subsequently handled by the Canadian Forces. Major Henwood was wounded during a peacekeeping operation and then set adrift by his own.

Expecting to have his and his family's needs taken care of - as he had always been told they would be - Major Henwood soon found that matters would be up to him. Bed ridden, and a thousand kilometres from home, Bruce Henwood had to find out for himself what services and entitlements were available, plan his own transition to civilian life, see to the needs of his family, manage a series of extra financial burdens, and navigate his way through a web of interdepartmental bureaucratise. His requests for information and assistance had to be made repeatedly.

Unfortunately, Major Henwood's is not the only such case. No member of the Canadian Forces should ever have to repeatedly ask about his or her entitlements upon injury. It is the responsibility of the Departments of National Defence and Veterans Affairs to ensure that wounded or injured members and their families be advised of their entitlements at the earliest possible moment. The onus is on the Departments to ensure that serving members and their families receive all that they are entitled to.

We were also struck by the incongruity between the expectations members had about life in the military and the reality they came to live. Many found their expectations frustrated because of poor pay and substandard housing. They were frustrated not only because comparable civilian occupational groups were perceived as better compensated, but, even more so, because the promise of bringing military pay to public service equivalency - made in the 1960s - was not properly honoured.

On the West Coast we were told of sailors who had to live onboard ship because they could not afford local rents for even the most basic accommodation. We heard of serving personnel who had to go to food banks in order to be able to feed their young families; a more widespread occurrence than we could have guessed. Some of our personnel have had to endure housing that would be condemned if it were made available to the civilian population. Members of the Canadian Forces must be fairly and equitably compensated for the work they do and the risks they take. Members and their families should never have to suffer the indignity of substandard housing, nor should they be reduced to charity in order to feed their families.

The contribution of Canada's military to our national well-being and to international peace and security in United Nations and NATO operations is inestimable. Our troops are military professionals who have always been well regarded by the international community and are still the "preferred" peacekeepers. Recent floods in Manitoba and Quebec and the ice storm in Central Canada demonstrated how invaluable they are to our domestic needs. However, while our military personnel have always taken pride in the uniform they wear and the vocation they have chosen, certain events have put them on the defensive.

Torture and murder in Somalia, inappropriate behaviour in the former Yugoslavia, and sexual harassment on bases here at home have come to reflect badly on Canada's military. Even though these have been the acts of only a few, many feel they have had to share in paying the price. At the same time, many also expressed the view that, when wrongdoing was punished or investigated, a double standard was invariably applied - one for the officers and one for the other ranks. The perception of such a double standard does little to instil confidence in the military's leadership. Too often we heard the refrain, "there is one standard for officers and one for the rest of us." It used to be the tradition that officers set the example and, when found wanting, were made an example of. There should be no double standard, nor perception thereof, when dealing with wrongdoing in the Canadian Forces.

Another theme we found particularly disturbing was the feeling among military personnel that they had somehow been forgotten by the nation they had sworn to serve. They suffer from a sense of abandonment and a belief that the only thing of interest to the public is the next scandal. How have we arrived at such a point? Perhaps it is partly the fault of the media which seems to prefer scandal to good news, perhaps some of the fault lies with the Department itself and its inability to put before the public stories of accomplishment, or it may be the fault of us all for not caring as long as things are going well. We might simply ask ourselves why it was that the story of the Medak Pocket took so long to be told.

There was little mention in the media in 1993 about what Canadian soldiers experienced during the heavy fighting in the Medak Pocket operation. Indeed, there was little public knowledge of the incidents until an article appeared in October of 1996 in the Ottawa Citizen. The story had been reported by a Canadian military public affairs officer in theatre who made it available to the media. European newspapers carried the story, but the Canadian media did not. The growing controversy, at that time, over the incidents in Somalia may have been a factor in the lack of news coverage in Canada. It took three years before the public was properly apprised of what our peacekeepers had to endure - witnessing the atrocities of ethnic cleansing, artillery barrages, fire fights, wounded comrades, and the effects of post-traumatic stress. Our troops, including a number of reservists, acquitted themselves with distinction in very difficult circumstances. But, upon their return home, they received little in the way of recognition. It is important that we properly recognize members of the CF for the courage they display and the selfless sacrifices they make. They must again wear their uniforms with pride and with the feeling that theirs' is an honourable calling.

In order to maintain operational effectiveness, it is also necessary to have an effective family support system in place. Troops in the field do not need the added burden of worrying about the well-being of family members at home. Such concern was a recurrent theme throughout our hearings. Members are often sent on dangerous deployments with very little notice. Making provision for daycare, ensuring that sick family members are adequately cared for and the myriad of household concerns that are a constant preoccupation for us all should not be matters of serious concern to those in operational theatres. We must ensure that adequate family support programs, meeting consistent standards, are always in place and readily accessible.

Extensive downsizing has meant that many have had to take on extra duties at a time when promotions in a number of trades have been virtually frozen. Many trades have also been "collapsed," requiring personnel to learn new skills. At the same time, the military pay structure has not been adjusted to take these factors into account. The result has been more work with fewer people and the frustration that comes with doing a good job while suffering career stagnation. The military pay structure must be adjusted so that members receive proper recognition and compensation for additional taskings and for periods of deferred promotions.

Throughout our hearings we learned that our military personnel - particularly at the lower rank levels - feel themselves to have become the victims of a series of broken trusts; they have been let down by:

• their governments,
• their leadership, and
• the public at large.

If we are to maintain an effective military we must re-establish, on a firm foundation, the trust between our military personnel and those to whom they look for leadership and recognition. As Parliamentarians, we need to recognize that the members of the Canadian Forces are constituents of us all and that all Parliamentarians share the responsibility for their well-being. Government must come to terms with the fact that there is a cost attached to the services provided those on the Treasury benches have to recognize that adequate resources must be expended. Senior military leadership must always put the interests and well-being of their members ahead of their own. When these are achieved, Canadian citizens must recognize that the benefits we share as members of a free and democratic society are ours because they are ultimately ensured by those who defend us, and that in doing so, members of the Forces sacrifice much in the way of their own personal freedoms.

During our hearings it was suggested that we need to make explicit the unwritten "social contract" which has traditionally existed between the military and government, and by extension, with the public at large. The contract, so the argument goes, is an implicit one - guaranteeing military members adequate recognition and benefit for the sacrifices they make and the service they render. Unfortunately, attempts to articulate exactly what should be entailed in such a specific statement of intent were not easily come by. Tacit understandings do not easily lend themselves to articulation. Indeed, while abstract statements, hung on mess hall walls, may make for appealing decoration they are unlikely to help solve the problems at hand.

Rather than ruminate in the realm of the abstract, we have concluded that our national commitment - in essence a moral commitment - to the Canadian Forces must be based on the following concrete principles:

• That the members of the Canadian Forces are fairly and equitably compensated for the services they perform and the skills they exercise in performance of their many duties. And, that such compensation properly take into account the unique nature of military service.
• That all members and their families are provided with ready access to suitable and affordable accommodation. Accommodation provided must conform to modern standards and the reasonable expectations of those living in today's society.
• That military personnel and their families be provided with access to a full and adequate range of support services, offered in both official languages, that will ensure their financial, physical and spiritual well-being.
• That suitable recognition, care and compensation be provided to veterans and those injured in the service of Canada. Here, the guiding principle must always be compassion.
• That members be assured reasonable career progression and that in their service they be treated with dignity and respect. In addition, they must be provided with the appropriate equipment and kit commensurate with their tasking.

It is upon these principles, or pillars, that the future of the Canadian Forces must be built. We also believe that these should provide a continuous check, or benchmark, for policy formulation and change. Underlying all of this is the firm belief, as enunciated by the Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy (1994), that Canada should maintain unified, combat capable, multipurpose armed forces composed of sea, land and air elements that are:

• properly equipped;
• able to operate together at home in defence of Canada's territorial sovereignty and security; and
• able to operate abroad in support of Canada's multilateral peace and security interests and responsibilities.

Our report is structured around the themes expressed in our statement of fundamental principles. We believe that our recommendations will help the Government and the Department of National Defence come to terms with current problems and future needs. We also hope that these recommendations adequately reflect, and attend to, the concerns put to us by the many members who testified. The one thing that became clear to us, especially while spending time with our troops in theatre, was that there really is no equivalent profession to that of service in the Forces. Whatever programs we put in place, or adjustments we make, they must clearly reflect this reality. At the same time, it is important to remember that the provision of adequate equipment and operational training remains a priority. In light of this, we, as a Committee, have great concern that the defence budget was not maintained at the level recommended by the Special Joint Committee in 1994.

Finally, we should note that much of what we recommend can be acted upon by the Department of National Defence itself. But, given the systemic nature of the problem, the cooperation of other departments and the Government will be required. Where appropriate, we will note the relevant actors and ask that their approach be positive and forward looking, and that, in their deliberations, they keep before themselves the unique nature of military service and the important benefits we all derive therefrom.