[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 20, 1997

.0843

[English]

The Acting Chairman (Mr. O'Reilly): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It's my privilege and pleasure to call this meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), this is a review of the social and economic challenges facing members of the Canadian Forces.

Our witnesses today are from the Department of National Defence. We welcome Vice-Admiral Larry Murray; Lieutenant-General David Kinsman, Assistant Deputy Minister of Personnel; and Canadian Forces Chief Warrant Officer J.G.L. Parent.

Welcome, gentlemen. I would ask you to first note that I am not Mary Clancy. She is unable to attend.

I will start this meeting by asking you, Vice-Admiral, to present your opening statement, after which we will go to questions from the panel.

Vice-Admiral Larry Murray (Acting Chief of Defence Staff, Department of National Defence): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I might describe Chief Parent's position a little more. He is the Canadian Forces chief warrant officer, the senior non-commissioned member of the armed forces. He is a search and rescue technician by occupation, but he is my and the armed forces' counsel's principal adviser for the non-commissioned members of the armed forces.

.0845

I would like to begin by extending my sincere personal thanks to this committee from all the members of the Canadian Forces for agreeing to take on the extremely important task of studying the socio-economic conditions and challenges facing the forces today.

As this committee is aware, the mission of the Canadian Forces is to protect Canadians and to promote their interests around the world. For the men and women of the Canadian Forces, this is more than just a job. It's a calling that requires unique individuals who believe in Canada and who subscribe to the highest standards. It requires people who are willing to put their lives on the line for their country. We have those people who are dedicated to their duty and their country.

There is no denying that we do have some problems. However, in the more than 32 years I have been in the forces, I do not believe we have ever been blessed with better men and women at all levels. They are our most important resource. They are what makes things happen. They are the bedrock upon which we must build.

As our country enters the 21st century, we must ensure that we look after the membership of the Canadian Forces in a fair and equitable manner that matches the reasonable expectations of all Canadians. That is why I think the task you have agreed to undertake is so important.

[Translation]

Our soldiers, sailors and air personnel make a fundamental commitment to Canada. The central question is: "What is Canada's commitment to them"? I would suggest that the answer to this question should perhaps form the backdrop for any of the issues that you may chose to review.

Before I make specific remarks about socioeconomic issues, I would like to provide some context in relation to the challenges that the Forces are facing today.

First, the Forces have experienced an intense tempo of operations in recent years. All services have been feeling the stress, not just the Army.

Second, we are beginning the third year of a five-year downsizing and restructuring program that is probably the largest of any organization in Canada.

[English]

Our budget has been cut from over $12 billion in 1994 to $9.25 billion in 1999, a 23% reduction. In 1999 we will have a regular force strength of about 60,000 members. That's a reduction of 28,800 since 1989. We will also have a reserve force of about 30,000.

When you combine the intense operational tempo with the massive re-engineering and restructuring that has been under way, the impact in human terms is not surprising. We have had more operational rotations, which have resulted in extended periods away from home for many personnel. As a result of re-engineering we have also developed new ways of carrying out even the most basic tasks. In some cases during this transition period there has been more work for fewer people, although we are trying to overcome that challenge as quickly as possible.

There have been other fundamental changes since the last comprehensive review of conditions of service, which I believe was in the early 1970s. At that time most single military personnel lived in quarters on base or in apartments close to base. Married personnel lived on base in married quarters and were for the most part single-income families. Every base had a school, a gym, a theatre, church and store, all of which provided the social infrastructure required to support military personnel and their families.

As Canadian society has changed over the past generation, so too has the social fabric of the Canadian Forces.

[Translation]

We now have more female members, many more spouses with careers outside the home, more dual-career families with children in daycare, more single parents and more of our personnel either own or rent their own home. In short, I believe that they are representative of contemporary Canadian society.

We are moving away from a system of support mechanisms necessarily provided on-base to integration with services provided by neighbouring communities.

What we need to know for today's Forces is what framework of support systems is required to ensure that the military personnel we deploy nationally or internationally can focus on their mission without worrying unduly about their families or loved ones.

.0850

The important task that this committee has agreed to tackle will help us determine what is needed. And you will be sending an important message to the members of the Canadian Forces. Namely, that the people you represent from all regions of the country care about their well-being. That in itself is good for morale.

[English]

For the next few minutes I'd like to raise some issues and clarify others that you may wish to consider during your study.

First and foremost, what are the government's responsibilities with respect to the economic and social support provided to members of the forces in recognition of the distinct characteristics of their profession? These include the risk of injury or death, short-fuse deployments overseas, frequent moves, long separations from family, and restrictions on personal freedoms. Other professions share some of these characteristics, but I do not believe that any other shares them all.

With this in mind, your input could be invaluable in defining or redefining the government's implied social and economic contract with the members of the forces as we enter the 21st century. Certainly one key element of that contract and one that has a significant impact on morale is pay.

In recent years the pay for non-commissioned members was frozen for four years. Officers' pay has been frozen for five years and there was a two-year freeze on pay increments. Members of the forces are well aware that the legislation on their pay freeze ends on April 1, 1997. I believe they also know that the senior military leadership is trying hard to come to grips with this issue. However, I believe their confidence in our ability to do so is not high.

At the time of the pay freeze, Canadian Forces pay had fallen behind that of the public service. Currently shortfalls are 4.5% for non-commissioned members and 14.7% for general service officers. A key question is whether the pay for the Canadian Forces should continue to be based on comparability with the federal public service. If so, what mechanisms can be put in place to ensure that comparability can be maintained?

I believe that should comparability with the public service remain the benchmark methodology, it is essential that some mechanism be established to ensure that raises in the forces coincide automatically with those in the public service, with the actual amount being established through some sort of agreed formula. If that is not possible, then some other mechanism involving a third party or the establishment of some form of Canadian Forces association may be required - an approach I do not favour, but one that may be necessary if existing mechanisms cannot be improved.

[Translation]

Our members serve in a variety of geographic locations across Canada and around the world. I believe that no individual in uniform or military family should be financially or socially disadvantaged when they move from one location to another to meet the needs of this service.

As we consolidate our defense installations across the country, we are striving to, and in my view, should be able to, reduce the frequency of moves and reduce the family turbulence that goes with them. But to maintain operational effectiveness we will still have to move people in the future. We have relocational allowances that cover some aspects of our members' costs of moving, but, as the members of the committee know as well as anyone, moving is a family affair, and many of the sacrifices required of family members are not currently factored into this equation.

In today's society we talk of family income. Imagine the impact of the loss of a spouse's income on a family's lifestyle after a move. The question then is: should the government consider compensation for family financial loss and spousal loss of employment because of moving at the Forces' direction?

[English]

I am not personally sure of the right answer to that question. Certainly double-income families are more and more the norm in Canada. I understand that on average, spouses of forces members make 40% less than employed spouses of federal public servants. That may be due, or at least in part due, to frequent moves.

Another important issue is housing. The serious nature of our duties requires that we keep our people focused on their mission and not worrying about basic necessities. Therefore, we must ensure that all our members have access to suitable and affordable housing no matter where the forces sends them to live. We need imaginative solutions that recognize geographic realities and disparities.

Questions relating to housing include these: what is the social and operational requirement for military housing? What is the role of government in providing military housing that is available, suitable and affordable? What should be the structure, mandate and funding of the Canadian Forces housing authority as a special operating agency? How can disparities for individuals who have little or no choice about where in Canada they will live be eliminated or minimized?

.0855

The relationship between morale, performance and operational effectiveness is well documented, as is the relationship between morale and personnel support programs like recreational and community services. In short, personnel support programs impact on operational effectiveness.

What is less clear is the government's responsibility for supporting important personnel programs, and the level of government funding and support that is warranted as we enter the 21st century.

[Translation]

One of our successful efforts in recent years has been the Military Family Support Program which supports family resources centres at bases across the country. Since 1984, this program has taken some important first steps in meeting many of the needs of our military families. But one question that remains unanswered is the matter of public support for child care. Without some sort of mechanism in place to support child care, our ability to deploy single parents, parents with working spouses and service couples will continue to decline.

And what about our Reservists? Last year, 550 of them served on peacekeeping missions, demonstrating the importance of the Reserve Force to the Canadian Forces and Canada. The Total Force concept recognizes the contribution of both the Regular and Reserve components of the Forces. By extension, shouldn't social and economic benefits apply to both components?

We have moved the yardsticks by implementing the Reserve Force Compensation Policy which, among other things, will establish reserved pay rates at 85% of regular pay scales and introduce new benefits such as the Reserve Force retirement allowance.

Considerable efforts are underway to address virtually all the Reserve conditions of service, improvements that were recommended by this committee and the Special Commission on the Restructuring of the Reserves. However, you will likely want to further investigate whether certain benefits are relevant to both Regular and Reserve components or if additional changes are warranted to cater to the dual-employee status of Reservists.

[English]

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the Canadian Forces have been a valuable national institution for 130 years. We will continue that legacy by being there whenever and wherever Canada needs us. To do that, we have to ensure that we attract and retain high-quality, motivated people. In this regard we are in open competition with other employers in the marketplace. There is a well-documented relationship between attraction of applicants, retention of personnel and fair and equitable compensation and benefits.

I applaud the Minister of National Defence and this committee for taking the interests of our people to heart, and I know the forces will provide any support you need in this important endeavour. Certainly you can count on my personal support to provide whatever you need to help you complete this vital task. Thank you. Merci beaucoup.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Thank you very much, Vice-Admiral Murray. We will go directly to questions.

[Translation]

Mr. Brien.

Mr. Brien (Témiscamingue): Before asking my first question, I want to repeat a concern I first voiced when the minister came before the committee.

You will surely need to help us if we are to do good work. Military personnel will have to be able to express themselves as freely as possible, especially with regard to social conditions. As for economic conditions, I'm just about certain that they will say what they have to say, but on social conditions, it may be different if people feel that they might be exposing themselves to reprisals if they speak freely.

Let's talk about financial issues first. The Regular Force is going to go from close to 90,000 to 60,000. I would like you to give me a breakdown of the 60,000 people, members of the Force, by rank. In the end, what will be the composition of the Regular Force?

VAdm Murray: To answer your first question, I think that the members of the Canadian Forces who appear before the committee will be very honest. If that is not the case, I hope that someone will tell me. I can guarantee my support. It is important that everyone be honest if the committee wishes to succeed at its important task.

.0900

As to the figures, it would probably be best to provide them to you on paper, but general Kinsman my have some further details to give you in a moment.

There are approximately 47,000 non-commissioned members of the Force, and the rest are officers. I believe I have some figures here.

At the end of this year, we shall have 13,297 officers and 48,000 non-commissioned members, for a total of a little more than 61,000 persons. I think it would be useful to provide you with the figures we will have at the end of that period, in 1999.

Mr. Brien: We know that the salary freeze ends this year. Can you at this time cope with a salary thaw and keep within your budget envelope?

VAdm Murray: The problem doesn't really involve the budget, but rather negotiations with Treasury Board. For instance, we set aside a fairly large amount to eliminate the difference between the Armed Forces and the Public Service. However, it will be more difficult to obtain a salary increase of 14% for the officers. I think that that will have to be phased in over two or three years, or something like that. With regard to our budget, we have earmarked the necessary funds to make these changes.

Mr. Brien: You mean that you have the necessary budgets to balance the Forces with the Public Service. So, you would, financially speaking, be able to balance things in the way you have described here.

VAdm Murray: Yes.

Mr. Brien: I see. You talked about the characteristics of the military profession, and you mentioned restrictions on personal freedoms. What did you mean by that?

VAdm Murray: If you are advised that you are being posted to the former Yugoslavia, for instance, you have no choice. Secondly, we do not enjoy the same freedom of expression as other Canadian men and women, and this is not particular to Canada. In all democratic countries, military personnel must be apolitical. We do not have the right to criticize the government, and that is the case in most democracies.

Mr. Brien: My question bears on an element you did not mention in your presentation, involving social conditions. Many military people participate in peacekeeping missions and the general policy, once they have returned, is that they not be posted there again before a certain period of time has elapsed. Have you ever studied the situation of those who are sent repeatedly on peacekeeping missions? Do you intend to change that policy? Do you have any information to submit to us before we consult them on that?

.0905

VAdm Murray: There are two aspects to that issue.

First, the committee recommended in its 1994 report that the army be increased by 3000 members, which is being done. That increase in the number of army personnel will mean that rotations will be less frequent. We would like the frequency to be one rotation out of five to allow people to spend some time with their family, receive training, etc.

The other aspect of the issue is the reduction in the number of deployments. For instance, in 1993-94 there were four or five deployments going on at the same time. Now, there are only two, one in Haiti and one in the former Yugoslavia. In the former Yugoslavia, we only have one group battalion. We can maintain such a level of operation, even for the Navy and Air Force. Our operational tasks are less demanding than they were.

I think we are on the right track in both cases.

Mr. Brien: I want to rapidly touch on a second matter, but this is something we could explore more at length.

In the case of Moose Jaw francophones, there is a precedent or a surprising position taken by the Department of National Defence. It has said that the Official Languages Act does not apply to military people. Is that a firm and definitive position of your department, or do you want us to look into that matter.

VAdm Murray: I will ask general Kinsman to provide you with more detail, but the reality is that the Official Languages Act applies to military personnel and we try to make progress. I think that we have made progress in the past few years. Things are not yet perfect but we are endeavouring to make real progress throughout Canada and in the Canadian Forces.

I think that in Moose Jaw it is, among other things a matter of service to families. We are trying to prepare a standard, not because of the law, but because we think that we must do more in this area. People who work with general Kinsman are trying to prepare a standard which will be implemented throughout Canada to ensure that those who work in Moose Jaw and their families have access to the same services in both official languages as do those who work in Gagetown, Halifax, or Esquimalt. This is not easy, but we are trying.

Lieutenant General David Kinsman (Assistant Deputy Minister, Personnel, Department of National Defence): I don't have much to add, if not that it is not correct to say that the Armed Forces do not support the Official Languages Act. What we are talking about in this case, rather, involves providing support to families. That is the heart of the matter, as the Acting Chief has just said.

The report of the Official Languages Commissioner mentioned that certain services were not available to francophones in Moose Jaw. As Admiral Murray said, we have made a lot of efforts since that time insofar as clubs, social activities and so on are concerned in order to improve the situation. It is not true that we do not feel governed by the Official Languages Act. In fact, we support it one hundred percent.

.0910

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Hart.

Mr. Hart (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt): Thank you very much. Welcome to the committee.

Following up on how the Official Languages Act fits in with the Canadian Armed Forces, could anybody tell me exactly what element in the profession of arms that bilingualism plays? What skill set do you require to have both official languages for the profession of arms?

VAdm Murray: I would see the Canadian Forces as a national institution and therefore reflective of the national reality in Canada, which I think is quite important. In terms of pure operational capability, I guess I would argue that one of the great strengths and one of the reasons the Canadian Armed Forces have been in such tremendous demand since the end of the Cold War is the fact that we do bring to the table significant numbers of bilingual personnel.

Certainly in the context of all three services, it's very important for the leadership, be they senior NCOs or be they officers. When one is commanding a ship that has anglophones and francophones, when one is commanding a regiment or an air squadron - and that's the case throughout the country... It's very important in my view, as someone who didn't have that capability early on in his career and who felt quite awkward trying to communicate with young sailors who joined and had every reasonable expectation to be addressed in the language they grew up in.

For an operationally effective armed force, I think it's essential in this country. Also, as I've said, I think it really does enhance our capability around the world and is one of the reasons we're in such great demand.

Mr. Hart: Operationally, though, what language would we use when we're on a NATO exercise deployment or -

VAdm Murray: Normally English. However, there is communication en français. French is also a NATO language, and certainly at an operational or tactical level within the army...French is used at a tactical level. English is more common in the naval sense; it tends to be English only. We also function in code words, because pronunciation of any language can be different. If you have somebody from Portugal speaking English, it's quite important that it also be in tactical verse. So it tends to be English, but NATO does function en français de temps en temps aussi.

Mr. Hart: For the most part, English would be the operational language or the universal language used, would it not?

VAdm Murray: I would say for the most part it would be English.

Dave, on the air side -

LGen Kinsman: I think the acting chief has described it quite well. If you're at a tactical level or at a unit level, quite frequently it depends upon the balance of the members of the unit.

For example, I was a squadron commander of a French-speaking squadron from Bagotville, Quebec. Tactically we operated 100% in French, because that's what people were most interested in speaking and the communication was within our group. If the communication had to go to other elements where one wasn't sure whether or not French would be understood, English was employed.

It would therefore be difficult to define whether it was a majority of English or a majority of French. It depends upon the context.

VAdm Murray: The other thing is that in some cases, such as in Mr. Parent's business as a search and rescue technician in this country, it's essential that people be able to communicate in both languages to deal with the people they're looking after. I'd like to be clear that from my perspective as acting chief of defence staff, striving towards having a fully bilingual officer corps and having as much as possible of the rest of the organization bilingual is extremely important.

Mr. Hart: I don't want to labour the point. I think it's good that people can speak both official languages. It's something I wish I could do. I'm just wondering in the profession of arms - and we're looking at the cost of the Canadian Armed Forces - which language is most efficient. If you're looking at deploying forces outside Canada... I realize the problem we have within the country, but if we're training our forces to be operational and combat effective outside the country, maybe it's something we should look at.

VAdm Murray: For example, right now in Haiti the operational language is French. In other words, the reason Canadians are there and the reason Canadians are held in such high regard and the reason -

Mr. Hart: How did the Americans do?

Adm Murray: Not as effectively. The Americans had 20,000 troops there. We have1,300 troops. Two weekends ago I was down there with six kids and walking through the slums of Haiti. They were maintaining a presence and doing a super job, but a big part of the reason they could do what they were doing is that they could talk to the people. There was friendly banter and all that. It's essential the organization in Haiti speak French, and it's doing an excellent job.

.0915

Mr. Hart: Good. In the briefing notes it says that 52% of our budget represents the personnel and related costs...$5.5 billion a year of the total defence budget. How is the 52% comparable with other NATO countries? Are we high, low?

VAdm Murray: I'm not sure, Mr. Hart. I thought we were closer to 40%, so I'm not sure what's in the 52%. My understanding is that with the pay freeze of recent years - and that's something I think we would want to clarify and make sure you did have the right numbers on - we have fallen behind.

In other words, when comparing, you really have to make sure the comparisons are made between countries similar to Canada, with an all-volunteer professional force and without conscription, and not with a country with conscription. If one makes those comparisons, my understanding is we're in the ballpark, and we may actually be spending a little less on personnel than the Americans and some others who have in recent years been putting more money into that side to retrain or attract the right people. Since we've had a pay freeze effectively for four or five years, our numbers may be a bit low, but it is a big chunk of the budget. Obviously if we could control it, that would be terrific. I think we're in the ballpark but a little lower in relation to the Americans. I would want to have the team confirm it, because it's an extremely important part of what you're doing.

Mr. Hart: It would be easy for everyone to say the pay in the Canadian Armed Forces has to go up for non-commissioned and commissioned officers. The concern I see is that the military is in a condition very similar to what it was in the 1970s, where the government reduced the size of the forces and froze the budget. In this case it's even worse because we're reducing the budget, and we have equipment we have to repair or replace over a period of time.

A short-term fix to the morale problem in the Canadian Armed Forces is give them a pay raise, but does it really solve the bigger morale problem of the reductions that personnel are facing now, the stress that is putting on their lives and their jobs? How do you see that as part of the problem? What's going to happen to the operation and maintenance side of the budget if a pay increase is given?

VAdm Murray: I think as I said in the answer to an earlier question, in my view we have catered for a reasonable pay raise. I also wouldn't want my comments about the pay freeze to be misinterpreted. I think the government had to take a number of tough decisions, and the fact that the Canadian Armed Forces is included in the public service, so like the rest of the public service we experienced a pay freeze - that's life.

In terms of your broader question, this committee made a number of recommendations in 1994 that effectively became the heart of the white paper and defined the forces at the 60,000. In fact, we think we can get the reserves, which actually was another result of a later study by this committee -

Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): It was just at the 67,500 mark.

VAdm Murray: In any event, with the numbers at 60,000, 30,000 and so on, and with the equipment definition that is in the white paper, and assuming we get stable funding, which Tuesday's budget indicated was the case for now, and assuming we keep our feet to the fire and committees like this and SCOPA keep our feet to the fire in terms of the re-engineering, restructuring, the saving, the whacking of headquarters - reducing our higher-level headquarters by 50% - and that sort of thing we're entrained to do, I believe we can deliver the combat capability defined in the white paper. It won't be easy, but I think we can do it and still look after our people reasonably well.

I think the other issue this committee has to wrestle with is what is fair for the Canadian Forces. In other words, one context that very definitely has to be taken into account is what the context is for the rest of Canadians. We're not coming with a blank cheque.

I think one thing this committee can do that we may not be able to do internally is look at that and come up with what's fair. That's all the members of the forces are after. Assuming that the budget of last Tuesday is indicative, I think we can continue to deliver what this committee recommended that we deliver...the white paper, effectively.

.0920

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Thank you very much, Mr. Hart.

Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton): Thank you very much, Vice-Admiral Murray, and the rest of the staff for attending. I appreciate that.

This is a good start for our committee as we start out on our little adventure to study these problems. From my own view, I have always felt the committee should look at the military in terms of making sure that proper equipment, adequate quarters, decent pay and benefits, less political intervention in the day-to-day operation, and a clear mandate that's in step with today's society are important, including the ceiling on the number of personnel overall. The only way you can keep your budget in line is to know how many people you have and what operations you're capable of handling.

Some of my earlier questions have been answered. I wanted to go back to your statement on the societal changes and the social fabric that you talk about. Do you feel the course you're taking in that area is working? Do you feel in the matter of housing, for instance, that some type of a specific contract is required with the private sector?

In visiting some of the bases I see inadequate housing, in my view, to what we would normally...if we're integrating our personnel into society, we wouldn't put them in the worst housing we could find. In some cases that is the case. I'm specifically thinking of Goose Bay and some of the messes that are there. I don't see the lifting of the freeze as a be-all and end-all. I think there are very systemic problems that have to be dealt with, and I'm looking for some direction.

In reading some of the documents supplied to us, it appears that when you move your personnel there is no guaranteed home sale plan. Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't; it's in review. If you're going to be in today's society, you have to have those very basic things that don't seem to exist. They're always rotating on some type of an experimental basis. Where it used to be that perhaps one or two people would move, now you're moving a whole family, and yet you don't have the support mechanism in place for that family. Correct me if I'm wrong.

The other thing that's always bothered me about the military - and there must be a way to get around it - is that you talk about integrating the military into the community and yet you don't build to the standards of the community. You build to some kind of a military standard that may be inadequate for the personnel you're building it for. I'm not blaming you personally, of course. I think in some way you would have to work with the communities in making sure your building codes or their building codes are adhered to, and that the basic requirements to integrate into the community are adhered to.

VAdm Murray: I think you've raised a number of issues here. I have one point of clarification. We do this year have a government-wide guaranteed home sale trial that's under way. DND has joined the rest of the government in that. We hope it will continue and prove to be a successful trial, because obviously it does take the strain off our people to know that at least they can sell their houses at market value should they be required to move.

I think the committee can be very helpful to us on the whole housing issue. In my opinion, the way we have been heading in recent years with the establishment of a Canadian Forces housing authority as a special operating agency and a policy that is geographically specific - in other words, dealing with Edmonton as unique to the Edmonton area, dealing with Esquimalt with its unique characteristics and so on - I believe is the way to go. But quite frankly, given the background and so on of a committee such as this, I think that's an area where you could be quite helpful.

.0925

Certainly it's my view that if where we're heading with the housing authority is the right way to go, then we do need some help in getting the housing authority greater freedom of action than we've managed to get at the moment from central agencies. So if this housing authority business as a special operating agency is indeed the way to go, they need more power than they have to date.

That seems to be the way some of our allies are going. Indeed, the Americans are even looking at greater privatization and so on of their housing arrangements. I think the way we have been going, of looking at geographic cases and setting up the housing agencies, is the right way to go, but we would benefit from a look at that, very definitely.

You mentioned that the pay isn't the whole answer, and that's certainly a reality. You've touched on the numbers of moves. We are trying to reduce the number of moves. Indeed, I think we have significantly reduced them in recent years. Nevertheless, you still have the difficulty of having to move people for career reasons or for long courses and all that, and we'll never get totally away from it.

But one of the advantages of going to a smaller number of large bases is that we're trying to leave people in the Edmonton area, the Trenton area, or the Halifax or Esquimalt area for as much of their career as possible. Obviously, they'll operationally deploy from those locations, but we'll try to give them as much domestic stability as we can, say six or eight years in one spot at a time. But that's difficult. We're working on it and we'll never entirely get there.

In terms of building to standard, we don't do much building. I would be surprised if you recommend that we do. From my perspective, I think there have to be better ways if we do determine that we need a certain number of houses dedicated to the military in certain locales.

I personally think there are ways in the 1990s or the 21st century to achieve that without our being in the building business. This is another area that involves the question of people feeling free to speak. People do need to speak, because you're going to get differing views on this.

Indeed, we have differing views I think among our various services. In the navy's case, we're quite comfortable because we tend to live in Halifax and Esquimalt and we've tried to encourage people to get out of PMQs and buy into the market. In the case of the army, which moves around a lot, and the air force, there is a sense that there is a critical mass of people who should live on the base and so on. Part of the debate in the Edmonton area right now is how many need to be on base if there's enough housing in the local area.

It's a cultural thing to us. You will be hearing differing points of view, and that's fair. So it is an area that I think really would benefit from a look by you folks.

Mr. O'Reilly: I was trying to balance attracting the private sector to provide housing with the fact that the private sector is always afraid that the base won't be there. So making a major investment in housing for military personnel may not be the wisest investment.

VAdm Murray: We're hoping if you do that you'll ensure that the bases stay there - I'm just kidding.

Mr. O'Reilly: Somewhere there's a balance. Somewhere there must be a balance in there that would attract the private market.

VAdm Murray: I think it would have to be a long-term arrangement with whoever does it in whatever area.

Mr. O'Reilly: How much...I guess it's a political question and I won't ask it.

VAdm Murray: Go ahead.

Mr. O'Reilly: In terms of our comparing the military to the civil service, should we not be comparing it to the private sector, especially if you're trying to integrate into the communities you go into or that you're already in? Do you not think this committee should do some economic comparison with the private sector, not necessarily with the civil service?

VAdm Murray: Yes, I think the issue of comparability is a fundamental question. We've looked at it. In the case of police departments, let's say municipal police departments or the RCMP, they do have a logical comparability.

.0930

My sense is that comparability with the public service is probably the best option, but I may be wrong on that. If you're not comparing it to federal public servants, it's a question of where and how you establish your benchmarks. My position would be that comparability with the public service is probably the fairest approach. Certainly we would grateful for you to look at other options in that area, because it's a very key question.

I do believe that if we are comparable with the public service, though, there has to be some automaticity such that after the public service gets a raise, we don't have to start negotiations and end up in a scenario where we're almost always tracking behind, where we catch up every so often but tend to fall back. If you conclude that public service comparability is the way to go, the point I tried to make here is that it's really important that somehow, whoever we're compared to, we come to grips with its being an automatic thing as opposed to a thing where we negotiate for months or years after and are always lagging.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): We now go to the five-minute rounds. Mr. Leroux.

[Translation]

Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Admiral Murray, ever since I have sat on the National Defense Committee, we have heard about the morale of the troops, which is not at its best. We hear that motivation is difficult. I'm looking at the military personnel behind you; they all seem very happy to be here this morning.

I remember meeting a French general who talked to us about reorganization and restructuring. We compared the Canadian Army and the French Army and we realized that the average soldier in the Canadian Army was older than in the French Army. Of course, they have obligatory military service, which will be eliminated or may have been eliminated as we speak, but I wonder whether the average age is not the problem. There are people in the military who are in the Forces too long, during 25 years or more, and that may be the heart of the problem. People would like to do something else with their lives at a certain point and there are no possibilities to go on to something else. So, people stay in the Forces and they try to be patient with their situation, like many public servants, members of Parliament, senators or teachers who continue to do what they do because this is that they have always done.

It is difficult to compare the conditions of military personnel with that of others, because basically you have a different role and status, especially in society. We could discuss this for hours. If we had a younger army, if people stayed in the Forces during ten years... Of course, a certain number would have to stay because we would need managers who would be career Armed Forces personnel, but the average duration of service could be less. Young people could be well prepared for peacekeeping duties, because that is mostly what we do at this time. We could continue to have an Air Force and a Navy. Young recruits would be members of the Forces during 10 years and would receive training that would allow them to leave the army after 10 years and do something else. Some could stay longer because we would need officers, as I was saying. It seems to me that that would improve morale. Today, when you look at a career that will last 25 years, that can seem long and people must simply endure their situation with patience. We know how things are today in the labour force. Military personnel live in the same world. It is not easy.

Now, let's talk about peacekeeping. I think that we must be modest. We are present everywhere throughout the world, we Canadians. We are always the first to get there. Often, we are not ready and we do not have the necessary resources. We do not have the necessary personnel but we go anyway. My French general said that they have a one to five ratio for rotations. We have a one to three ratio for rotations in Canada. We have young people who go over there. That's what I said to the Minister the other day, when we met young military personnel in Bosnia-Herzegovina; they had been there for two weeks. Everyone was peppy, every was high and in a good mood. We had no way of knowing how those young soldiers would feel after four-and-a-half or five months over there.

.0935

I would also like to talk about housing. I think it would be better for the Forces to rent rather than purchase accommodation. Perhaps you could rent and renew your rental agreements; I don't know how it works. It might be best not to invest. When you rent, you have a certain flexibility. If you decide to close a base or to move it, you have that flexibility to change. I think it is not a good thing to build too much infrastructure.

There is something else. When I was growing up in Granby, all the policemen lived on the same street. We used to call it the police street. Today, when military people leave the base at night, perhaps they don't really feel like living on the same street as all of the other military people. Perhaps they need to have their own separate lives.

If the army were collectively younger, it might be easier to organize it. Often, younger people are not married; they are engaged, but not married. The fact that the Armed Forces are getting collectively older creates problems. There is a spouse, sometimes a second spouse, and then there are the children; it is complicated. We know that life today is not easy. Children no longer want to... I'll let you answer that. We will surely have the opportunity of meeting again.

VAdm Murray: Do I have five minutes to reply?

Mr. Leroux: Certainly, because they don't have very many questions on the other side.

VAdm Murray: As for morale, we could talk about it for hours. I hope it will be possible to do so during our travels.

I think you will find that at this time the morale in the Forces is not bad. There are concerns with regard to pay and such things, but I think that generally at the end of this experience your opinion on the morale of the Forces will have changed.

Your question concerning age is interesting. In fact, we have just finished making an adjustment in our terms of service two weeks ago. We tried to give people a little more stability and to make the right decisions for the people who don't want to stay in the Forces after six years. For officers, the period could be nine years or thereabouts.

For those who want to stay, we want to ensure a 23 or 25-year career if that is possible. Our recruits have been older for the past five to ten years. People of 21 to 22 years of age are now the norm, whereas at the end of the 60s everyone was 17. Now, recruits are older. When you have taken very technical courses and have all the necessary physical capacities, it is a waste to kiss your career goodbye at 40 years of age.

But as far as soldiers are concerned, I believe you are right. I was told when we did this study that the soldiers leave a little earlier, probably because of the type of life they lead, as compared to the Navy or the Airforce. That is a good question.

As for the one in five rotation, that is our objective. The 3,000 soldier increase is almost complete and I think that the government and the Canadian Forces are trying to reduce the number of operations in order to reach the objective of the one in five rotation.

.0940

As for housing, I think we need a mix of the two. We need a system that encourages people to buy houses and live in the community but because of the lifestyle involved, we also need a few houses close to the base, or on the base itself, which can be rented.

LGen Kinsman: Yes, the Acting Chief was talking about Edmonton earlier, where we have a large base which is expanding and where we have a lot of apartments available around the base. We don't think it would be appropriate to build more houses when there are houses and apartments available.

We think it would be possible to create a kind of police street in Edmonton. If we could make arrangements with the civil community in order to group military dwellings in a certain suburb or village, we would have the best of both worlds. We would not have to build our own houses with all of the related maintenance costs which that implies. Furthermore, the leaders of the Canadian Forces don't want their people to be dispersed in remote communities. They want to have them close by in order to be able to give them services and to ensure that their morale stays up. If we could have communities within other communities, it would be much easier.

You raised an interesting point. We could do what you said the police used to do in Granby.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Mr. Frazer.

Mr. Frazer: I'm going to be fairly forthright, but I have a question to start with. You mentioned $9.2 billion as the defence budget. When I looked at the budget document yesterday it said$8.5 billion in 1999. Am I in error?

VAdm Murray: I think they're going to clarify that, Mr. Chairman. I think that was minus statutory. When you put statutory in, I think it's $9.2 billion. I think a clarification has gone out on that.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that.

Admiral, I'm very much on-side with you with regard to the military working for the government of the day. I want to be up front by saying that I don't agree with the current organization in National Defence headquarters, for instance. Without any personal aspersions at all, we have here the Assistant Deputy Minister for Personnel. An assistant deputy minister is part of the government, not at arm's length from the government. General Kinsman would be chief of personnel if I were doing things.

But that's neither here nor there. I just wanted to put it on record that I don't agree with the integration of civilian and military headquarters into one. You probably have a different concept of it.

Going to quarters, there was a time when people were posted to a base, and particularly if it were isolated, there would be quarters there for them. If there weren't quarters, they couldn't go to that base. That provided a family spirit. People were mutually supportive and they all knew what happened when somebody was posted away, either on temporary duty or on a deployment. That support was there.

Do you not feel that maybe it would be appropriate for us to regress a little bit, if you want to put it that way, back to where mutual support was provided?

VAdm Murray: That's a good question, Mr. Frazer. I may have confused the issue when I said that I think we're heading the right way with the establishment of the housing agency and geographic-specific housing policy.

What I'm trying to say is that in the city of Ottawa, given the nature of the work of the people who comprise the armed forces in Ottawa, I don't see a reason why the vast majority of folks couldn't live on the economy. In places like Cold Lake, Gagetown, perhaps Valcartier, I'm not sure, but one has to look at the geographic and the operational role of the unit.

Mr. Frazer: What about Esquimalt?

VAdm Murray: Esquimalt is unique. It is one of those areas of the country where the prices are so high that for our more junior people, officers and NCMs, unless there is some mechanism, a combination of accommodation assistance allowance and some housing, however acquired, our people just can't afford to live in Esquimalt. So it's less the cultural living together and more the reality of the cost of living in Esquimalt for housing.

.0945

Mr. Fraser: But you have the constant deployments. You have people away constantly for extended periods of time.

VAdm Murray: That's true, but certainly in the naval context on both coasts we have a family support centre. I think Halifax was among the first in the country to establish this. There certainly are networks among wives, spouses and so on.

But in my view, that doesn't mean they all have to live in the same community, and certainly in a naval sense that is not the way we... Well, there are married quarters areas in both Halifax and Esquimalt, but the vast majority of folks live on the economy, live outside. They still have good networks and can look after each other.

In the air case, if it's Cold Lake or Goose Bay or some isolated place, it's a different situation.

Mr. Fraser: It used to be that when people went overseas, if two people married in the service and had children, they weren't allowed to go, because if something happened the children were on their own.

As restrictive as it would be as an additional load on service people, is it worth while considering whether it's appropriate to have two service people married with children? Really it limits your ability, or the chief of personnel's ability, to move them around by virtue of the fact that they are dependent on somebody else looking after their kids.

VAdm Murray: As a personal view, and I guess it's also reflective of our current position, I would personally see that as an overly restrictive restriction on personal freedom. The reality is that many of our married couples become married because they meet each other in the service as opposed to -

Mr. Fraser: Yes, but it used to be that if you married, you had to leave.

VAdm Murray: I personally think we gain more by dealing with the issues that are raised by having married couples than the problems we would create if we said one of them had to leave if they got married. There's no question that it raises some challenges. Indeed, I mentioned that in my pitch. But I think they're manageable, and I'd rather deal with those challenges than the others.

Mr. Fraser: If I may, even if -

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Thank you, Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Collins.

Mr. Collins (Souris - Moose Mountain): Vice-Admiral, what you have to say is very interesting. I come from a very limited background in the area we are discussing, but you've raised some interesting factors. One is pay. One is mobility. Others are performance, housing, interaction with the community and frequent moves.

In order for me to assess to any degree the success or failure of any or all of these items, would you have some kind of graphic statement of what was past history, where we're going and what you see as the future, both in the short and the long term?

I always feel that we make these knee-jerk arrangements. A fellow drives up the stairs of the Parliament buildings and automatically we want to put up a six-foot wall and 34 security people. I don't care to get locked into that arrangement.

I do want to focus in on some things very quickly for you. If I as a taxpayer say, fine, lift the freeze, let's improve the morale, do you have some way of measuring whether the performance of those people is better if you pay more? In the profession I was in, at times I wasn't sure if I paid the person more...or if it was dedication that counted.

We're going to make some decisions. I don't like to think that you're lagging behind, but because you're in the forefront of things, you do anything wrong and by God, everybody is after you. If you do one thing right, nobody remembers. If you do a lot of things right, nobody remembers. It only takes one and everybody goes down the tube, and that's a sad commentary.

.0950

I don't know how we would measure this, but in terms of what we do with our communities - because you people are visible in the communities - I wonder if there isn't some way of working through a relationship with schools, with community or whatever. I can only remember one day a year when we'd have military personnel come in. They would ask if we were interested, if we would like to join up for this or that, and that was the end of it, other than November 11 or some other function. I think it is an important thing we have to do, making those links.

I'll just go back to housing. You said you had some concerns. Could you name three criteria that you'd like me to look at, that you feel we should be reviewing? And on the pay thing, could you just for a moment touch on that so that I will at least be able to take away a benchmark and say, here's where we're going?

VAdm Murray: In terms of your first point, I think we could. In fact, the team will do that. I think we would have data that look at, say, 1990 and 1996 and how we're making out in reducing moves. It's really 1992, 1994 and 1995 that have led to a number of base closures. I think we could try to give you some kind of tabular thing. I'm sure Colonel Arp could work with the clerk to do that. I think it would be useful.

In terms of pay and performance being better, I'm biased, but I think the Canadian Forces have been performing tremendously throughout my career, and certainly since 1989. With all the demands I've mentioned, they have done superb work around the world. They're not looking to get rich in the Canadian Forces. Indeed, if they want to get rich they're in the wrong occupation. I think all they're after is fair recognition.

In that context, I'm not also suggesting that with the general services officers lagging by 15% or something that anyone believes that this government or any other government, or any employer in the country right now, could say they will give a 15% raise. I think all they want is fair compensation, and almost the idea of seeing some additional compensation as recognition that they are doing a good job. In my view, balancing them with the public service would be fair if we could get some movement on that relatively quickly.

The issue you raised that when we do something right it doesn't get visibility, and when we do something wrong it does - that's at the heart. The minister was asked by somebody what two things bother the members of the Canadian Forces the most today, and certainly the first one is not pay. I would say pay and compensation is probably the second one because of the freeze.

The first one is getting some recognition - and it doesn't have to be major - that what our people are doing is important and is appreciated, and when one person screws up, it doesn't mean that the 99.99% of the rest of them have screwed up. Whatever can be done in that area would be very much appreciated, because that's the number one moral concern, quite frankly. You'll hear that wherever you go.

In the context of interaction with community and that sort of thing, it's something we are trying to encourage. I think that's part of the answer to that issue. In most communities across the country, it does happen now, but perhaps we have to open up our bases so that the media and the general public do meet people and discover that the kids who are the Canadian Forces are a pretty good group of folks.

In my mind, that's the number one issue with morale. It is something we have to turn the corner on within the next year or so, because I don't think the institution can carry on being hammered the way it's being hammered, with not much recognition for what they're doing that's right, without people starting to have second thoughts about whether they actually are going to work here or somewhere else. I don't think I'm overstating that.

.0955

Mr. Collins: I just have a quick comment. I noticed there are some in the military who, when they feel it's time, go into the political arena on this. Maybe they feel that their money will be made in that area.

VAdm Murray: I can't comment on that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): I guess he's not a candidate.

VAdm Murray: That's true.

Mr. Hart: Given the time constraints, I think I'll just rattle off a bunch of questions and see if we have time to get through them all.

First, in the 1970s we granted pay parity to the Canadian Armed Forces and we were considered the highest paid forces in the world. Are we still the highest paid forces in the world? I'd also like to see if the committee can get a breakdown by rank of our NATO allies to see where we fit in with corporals, privates, right up to generals.

Second, what is the percentage of the total budget in capital projects, and how does it compare with other NATO allies? I bring that up because in the 1970s when we gave pay parity to the Canadian Armed Forces, our capital spending dropped to its lowest level in history, to 9%. I just want to check that and make sure we're not in danger of repeating the same mistake we made in the 1970s.

I would also like to know if there's a possibility of a cost-of-living allowance for areas that have higher costs than others in Canada, for instance Esquimalt, where we've experienced problems.

Finally, you mentioned the unique characteristics of a Canadian Armed Forces career, including death and injury, but one characteristic that is the same among all Canadians is that we're taxed to death. The members of the Canadian Armed Forces are taxed to death just like everybody else. I would like to see a comparison of payroll deductions by rank from 1993 compared to 1996. It could be comparative - corporals, captains, lieutenant-colonels and maybe a major-general - just to see the levels. The spendable income of members of the Canadian Armed Forces is as important for them as it is for every other Canadian. I just want to see how that fits into the scenario too.

VAdm Murray: I'll go through these fairly quickly. In most cases I'd like to follow up with information on paper for everyone.

I'm not sure where we were in the 1970s, but I believe we have fallen behind the U.K. and the Americans.

To go to your fourth point, though, it's important to compare apples to apples in some of this. In some nations, in the United States, for example, there are tax differences and things like that which play in the package as well. Benchmarking this is extremely important to what you're doing, so we will do some work in that area. I don't know whether Dave has more specific information, but I think the short answer is no. How far, I don't know, and I'd like to confirm that as well.

In terms of the capital, we are at the moment at about 20%. Again, I'd like to confirm that. We were at about 23% and we're heading for about 20% on capital, minus ammunition and a few other things. We can give you specific numbers on that, and we can give you trends over the last few years as well.

In terms of the cost-of-living allowance - and I guess I didn't highlight that - it is actually an area of the housing thing that would be useful for you to look at to the extent you can. We do have something called accommodation assistance allowance, which is paid in communities that are more than a certain percentage above the national average, 12.5% or something.

The problem is that in a place like Esquimalt, it's really kind of neat to tell someone you're going to give them an accommodation assistance allowance. But with the choices in Esquimalt, because the apartment or house vacancy is 0.002%, with your AAA you can either live in a mansion, which you can't afford even with AAA, or you can live with the rats and you have this money. I overstate a little, but I'm saying that this mechanism in and of itself doesn't solve all the problems, depending on what the problems are in the specific geographic location.

We're also looking at commuting allowances and that sort of thing for people who now tend to live on the other side of the Malahat and that sort of thing.

In terms of the tax business, we would have to look at that for you. I just don't have that information, but I think we can get it for you.

.1000

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Mr. Frazer, did you have another question?

Mr. Frazer: I would just go back to what I was on before, about two married service persons either with or without children.

First of all, I agree very definitely when you say you can't claim parity between a civil servant and a military person. There's a totally different mandate there; therefore, to compare them is not comparing apples with apples but rather apples with oranges.

But if you have two married service people, surely it complicates your postings tremendously. If you have a SAR tech, for instance, and you want to post him to Comox and he's married to a lady who is in some other business that there is no need for at Comox, then either they're going to be separated perforce or you're going to have to find a place to fit this in. Is it unreasonable to say that because of the needs and demands of the service, we should maybe reconsider the policy?

VAdm Murray: I think I'll ask Mr. Parent's and General Kinsman's opinion on this as well, Mr. Frazer.

I still think we're better to have that situation than not. The people do understand. I mean, we do not keep people together forever. If there's an absolute service requirement for one to be posted somewhere, then they're posted and they have to make whatever personal decisions they make as a result of that. Being married is not a licence to spend the rest of your life in Valcartier, Esquimalt or wherever. But I think we're dealing with it. Dealing with it as a reality is better than coming up with what I would see in the 1990s or the 21st century as a fairly autocratic step, to say that one of you...you can't be married.

LGen Kinsman: There is no doubt that it adds another dimension to career management, but there is also a dimension as we consolidate our Canadian Forces infrastructure to fewer and fewer places. It actually makes it an easier solution for the career managers, assuming that you don't have a married couple who are both warrant officers and SAR techs and there's only one job at a base. That isn't normally the case. You normally have people of different skills and different trades.

So our career managers by and large, without it being too much of an onus on the system, are able to accommodate people. My sense is that most, if not all, married couples understand that from time to time togetherness will not be able to be accommodated.

The question of married service couples with children adds another dimension for sure. You heard in the presentation that the acting chief made, and you will see as you go around, that we actually think we can accommodate that with respect to some child care services that are either formally or informally given. When I was at Cold Lake, we already had child care services provided by the military community in acknowledgement of the fact that sometimes one of the parents would have to go away and the other one still had to work.

I would agree fully with the acting chief that it's much better to devote your energies towards adapting to this and enhancing your ability to accommodate married service couples with children than it is to come up with a ruling which, in fairness, 20 or 30 years ago one could get away with. But I think it's rather arbitrary now to say you can't be married and be in the military.

Chief Warrant Officer J.G.L. Parent (Department of National Defence): Our success rate now in co-locating military service spouses is around 80%, and we've introduced some programs to give us flexibility. With service members posted overseas now, one of the spouses can take leave without pay to accompany the other spouse who is officially transferred there.

So it's a challenge more than a problem. There are advantages as well, because we get two for one. With the price of compensation and benefits and the cost of moves and that sort of thing, we get two working uniform members displaced for the price of one. So it works both ways.

Mr. Frazer: Admiral, as I said before, I go on record very strongly as agreeing with you on the parity. How do you see us extricating ourselves from the parity that's been established between military people and the civil service? Do you have any idea how that can be brought about?

.1005

VAdm Murray: No. Mr. Frazer, I guess my concern is...I'm not convinced that's not the best solution. In other words, from my own perspective - and we did have a look at it before we knew this committee was going to actually get into it - we've had to deal with this issue because we do have this gap and we've also had a pay freeze. We've been looking at it. I think our internal conclusion - and when you get the technical briefings or whatever - was that comparability with the public service in terms of a benchmark probably was still the best way to go.

You need to have a look at it and conclude that yourselves, but if you assume that's the case, then the real issue becomes how you ensure that when the public service gets a raise, it's automatic for the armed forces, or in other words, it's done by an agreed formula or whatever. In my opinion, we should not be in the situation where officials or others from the Department of National Defence get into negotiations with Treasury Board.

You would have to conclude that because general service officers are 15% or 14.7% behind and NCOs are behind 4.7% - or whatever it is now - there have been various decisions taken based on perceptions and that sort of thing. Although I really want our NCMs to get their full parity, the reality is that we have junior officers right now who are hurting big time and we do need to come to grips with that issue.

I think there has to be some kind of a mechanism of automaticity established between the comparability and the raise. Even if you were to benchmark the comparability to something else, there's still going to have to be some kind of automatic mechanism so that the debate ends at whatever decision. I believe that if it doesn't and if we carry on in the scenario we're in right now, our members are going to start saying they need an association. And quite frankly, if we can't fix this thing, that would be the conclusion I would reach if I were them.

Mr. Frazer: So the way you see it, if the civil service got a raise, then there would be a bump in the military budget to accommodate the comparability.

VAdm Murray: In terms of that, yes. And over time I think that's the plan in the context of the ongoing negotiation in terms of our internal ability to meet the gap. We've already covered that in our budget, but future raises have to be worked out with the centre.

Mr. Frazer: I have one last question, Mr. Chair.

With regard to comments you made earlier about how the government comes to you and says it wants you to go somewhere and do something and you don't have a choice, I contend that perhaps that's part of the problem with the military now. You said 60,000. In that 1994 report, we said a minimum of 67,500 or that you could name some capability you're going to give up. Well, that's never been named and you're going to 60,000. I don't agree with that, but that's neither here nor there.

But it strikes me that when the government says to the Chief of Defence Staff that it wants forces to go to Haiti or to Bosnia or to Timbuctoo, the chief must have the ability to say to the government, I don't have the people to do it, my people are not adequately equipped to do it, and therefore, unless you do something about this, I'm afraid I'm going to have to say no.

When I served, I'd like to think I had a ``can do'' attitude: give me something and I'm going to do my damnedest to get it done. But with respect to the people in the forces, someone has to be there to say, hold it, we can't do this with what we have right now.

VAdm Murray: I don't disagree with you. To go back to your earlier point about the organization and all of that, Mr. Frazer, I think we do have a different point of view, but I think it's based on perceptions. The reality is that I've been involved since 1989 in senior levels at National Defence headquarters, other than a year as maritime commander. I don't know of any deployment the Canadian Forces have made since that time where the Chief of Defence Staff hasn't made a clear recommendation to the government of the day in which the Chief of Defence Staff did say - or certainly had the right to say - the sorts of things you've just said.

Certainly from my own personal experience, that was very definitely the case in Zaire. I very definitely had a speaking part, and that has been the case in every deployment since 1989, to the best of my knowledge. So whatever perceptions there are about the current organization, military advice is still there, military advice is still required by the government, and military advice in all the governments that I've seen since 1989 has been listened to.

Indeed, in the context of numbers of commitments and all of that, we haven't said yes to every commitment. We have said no to a number when we thought the risks were too high for our people...versus whatever the command and control arrangements were. It hasn't been all yes, either.

.1010

Mr. Frazer: With all due respect, though, when we were in Bosnia, we talked to people who are not happy with their APCs. They weren't adequate. We talked to people who were unhappy with their communications equipment, which was inadequate - it was breaking down all the time. It's strikes me that those types of equipment are vital to the operational success and to the safety of the people who are there, yet -

VAdm Murray: I think that's true, but in the case of Yugoslavia, the mission evolved dramatically over time. Significant improvements and enhancements were made to the equipment as the mission evolved, and we were getting new APCs and that sort of thing. At no time did an army senior officer - and this includes some people who are quite vocal on this subject in the public domain these days, and who were in key decision-making points at the front end in Yugoslavia - ever recommended against any of that. They were quite comfortable and found the equipment quite acceptable, as did the army. Quite frankly, it was quite acceptable for the missions they went in to do, and as the mission changed and evolved we improved the equipment, and so on.

I think there is more to some of this than asking your average sailor, who right now is in one of the finest warships in the world, whether or not he would like to see something different. I suspect you would probably find he would, because we're can-do people, and quite frankly, when we have the opportunity to talk to people like you, we use the opportunity to say what we think is right and what we think should be fixed. I hope you get some of that as you wander around the country on this particular -

Mr. Frazer: My concern, though, was that on the deployment of personnel, we were told there was to be a year of stand-down time between deployments. That wasn't met in a lot of cases, it was exceeded.

VAdm Murray: We're almost there now. In fact -

Mr. Frazer: No, I understand that now, but at the time -

VAdm Murray: At the time, we didn't have that rule. Indeed, it was a result of the 1993 events. Indeed, that was one very key reason why we simply had to leave Somalia. We had said all along we could go for one six-month tour, but we couldn't sustain it. There's no question that at the size of the armed forces, and with the level of deployments we had in the 1993-94 timeframe, we could not have got to the one in three, let alone the one in five that we're striving for now.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bertrand): Mr. Richardson.

Mr. Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to go back to a more universal approach to the job before us.

In the approaches, we have the comparability with the civil service and this time-delayed reaction to bringing the armed forces into line with these raises. If that is the event, we should make a very strong recommendation that the raises should be coincidental, because the intent is to keep you in comparability. There shouldn't be any time lag by the time the forces get that raise. Other than that, we should still be looking at comparability of forces that we serve with - probably the Americans, maybe the British and the Germans. We should look look at their pay rates and compare to those, along with other things they may be receiving as benefits.

That aside, I think that stands out as a sore point. To my point of view, it is a punishment - yes, your comparable, but you're delayed. That delay is a bit of a punishment. It's a tough word to use, but it is. It's a lack of compensation that you should have been receiving, by comparability.

The other point is this. Jack talked about the top end of the results of unification. One of the things that struck me in Bosnia was that the section was commanded by a sergeant. He had a master corporal, he had a corporal, and there was the poor section left with about four riflemen. We had too many leaders. I don't know why we had that. Maybe it was because of the need to pay and give some compensation, but it seems out of whack to have that many leaders in an infantry section - the sergeant as a section leader, the master corporal as 2IC, and some of them wearing the rank of corporal for time, I guess. I think it devalues the leadership position. I don't know why that's happened, but that's probably something that had to be done to make some compensation arrangements for these people.

When we talk about this here, I would ask that we look at that end. The top end has been addressed, but it does seem strange that a sergeant who used to command a full platoon of infantry now commands a section of nine or ten people. It's an image thing.

.1015

But otherwise we'll be giving it a good look. From our point of view, we thank you for coming in and answering so frankly on some of the issues. But there are lots more to look at than what we've discussed here. The minister's letter and direction are a very open-ended approach to looking at upgrading the compensation and services provided to current military personnel.

VAdm Murray: Yes, sir.

Just in relation to your observation about rank structure, it probably relates as well to an earlier observation about age. Part of the downsizing since 1989 has been a turning off of the recruiting tap, and you're absolutely right in terms of corporal not being a supervisory rank. It's a rank that one achieves after four years' service, so it is quite common today to have sections with corporals, or leading seamen in the case of the navy.

That situation is now changing. In fact, we are turning the recruiting tap back on to some extent. I think that's a good thing, since we are in fact going to have some bubbles in the system over time because of the fact that recruiting was turned down so low. It was something we had to do to make the reductions, but you do pay a price for that, and one of the prices is what you saw. But as early as this year, as you make your way around the bases, I hope you'll see the faces of a lot more young privates.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Bertrand): Mr. Frazer, I believe you had a very short question.

Mr. Frazer: With reference to Mr. Richardson's mention of the minister's letter, he also said he was looking forward to receiving our report in late 1997. So figure that into the election, Admiral.

Mr. Collins: Some of us won't be here.

An hon. member: See you, Bernie.

Mr. Frazer: I'd like to get your input on one of my concerns. When we visit people, I'm going to be looking for the family resource centres that you mentioned. I've had some exposure to these things, and I was somewhat concerned with them. When I was on squadron and somebody was coming in, we assigned him a sponsor and that sponsor got in touch with the guy. There was a personal contact established, and the squadron itself was the support centre for that individual. It strikes me, however, that by going to an organized family centre, you kind of diminish that personal contact and support. You rather give it off to the idea that you don't have to do it because it'll be looked after somewhere else.

Do you have a feeling for this? Is that valid?

VAdm Murray: I think it's a valid concern, and certainly as we get into... In fact, I was in the personnel job in Halifax when we started the first one down there, and that was one of the major concerns. In other words, was this going to work counter to what we, in the navy, call the divisional system? We thought that if we did it carefully and ensured that people did understand that the number one responsibility for the people was still the chain of command or the divisional system, this centre would provide a resource expertise to really coordinate or combine resources to look after family issues, resources to ensure we had adequate information on what was happening, and a focal point for questions on any number of things. We had to ensure that it wouldn't work counter to the divisional system in the case of the navy or, I presume, the regimental system in the case of the army.

I think that's the case, but there is no question it is something that has to be watched. It is a scenario in which people could say, it's not my responsibility because we have this family support centre. I don't think that's been the case, but I don't know whether others may want to comment on that. It might be a good one for the chief.

Mr. Frazer: I was at Comox - I don't know if the chief has been posted there - and it struck me that the units there had basically almost abrogated their requirement to do this. It was as if they said, let them look after it.

VAdm Murray: In my experience, I think we have found the right balance in most places. Certainly these family resource centres have been worth their weight in gold in the high-tempo period of the 1990s, but I don't disagree with your concern that they could be a problem if not handled carefully.

I don't know whether you want to comment on that or not, Chief.

CWO Parent: I would relate that to the fact that with the up tempo and workload of today, there are a lot of things we can't afford now that we could in the past, such as a closer relationship between members of an organization in support of each other and their families, and that sort of thing. In a lot of cases now members report to their unit and are deployed within a week or so. I think leaving that responsibility for family support and family adjustment to serving members when they are themselves taxed to the limit is not adequate. Therefore, since the challenge was to the family rather than the member, to have a central agency that was able to deal with the problems of the spouses and the children and adaptation to a new location...in fact, they were better served by these family resource centres.

.1020

Mr. Frazer: I'm certainly not against having a back-up thing. But I submit to you that perhaps this is one of the things we as a committee should be looking at. Can we really afford to give up that ability? Is that one of the problems we're examining? Is it a problem that is affecting people? Is it a problem that there isn't the ability for them to have this personal support relationship that we used to have? Again, we're talking about military people. They are different from others because their demands are different. I just wonder whether that isn't something we should be looking carefully at.

VAdm Murray: I think it is something that would be useful. From my perspective, I think we have the balance right in most places, and certainly in the resource centres. We've tried to enhance our pre-deployment and post-deployment briefings and all that for families as well as for members. We have found that they have been worth their weight in gold.

But I don't disagree with you. It's not a crutch that the chain of command can use to abrogate their responsibility to look after their people. There must be a balance, and we have to make sure we have the balance right. And if we don't, maybe we have to look at it.

Mr. Frazer: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Mr. O'Reilly has a brief question.

Mr. O'Reilly: I wanted some clarification on a quick point. We were talking earlier about the age of members of other armed forces. Is not the age a factor in other countries because they have mandatory service requirements for young people?

VAdm Murray: In fact, I think that was mentioned. I think France has just done away with conscription. I was talking with somebody about it last night. Certainly, countries that have conscription will have a younger force, but I think that when we do this chart maybe that's something we could provide. We are aging, but part of the reason is that our recruits are older, certainly in recent years.

I'm not entirely sure it's a bad thing in all cases. In the case of the infantry or something like that, people don't hang around long. But when we spend a lot of money to produce a technician who is perfectly physically fit - he or she - at the age of 38 or whatever and the only reason for them to leave is that we have a departure age of 40 and they haven't reached some magic rank, it really doesn't make sense in a business case. I don't think any other business in the country would do that. That's one of the changes we've just made in our terms of service. But the issue of striking the right balance in age for any armed forces is important, and there's no question that professional armed forces tend to be older than those with conscription.

I don't know how we match up with other countries like the Americans or British who are fully professional. That would be an interesting thing to see. As long as we have good physical fitness standards, I'm not sure it's a problem. But actually, that has been one of our challenges in recent years.

Mr. O'Reilly: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): Admiral Murray, we thank you and your witnesses for meeting with us this morning. Your comments about counting on your personal support are greatly appreciated by this committee. Thank you very much.

VAdm Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Bertrand): The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page