[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Monday, April 7, 1997
.1533 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.)): I call to order this meeting of the steering committee of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I note with gratitude the presence of the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Richardson, and the vice-chair, Mr. Bertrand. I note with regret that none of the four members of the opposition, neither the two official opposition members nor the two Reform Party members, are in attendance, nor have they informed my office, nor, as far as I know, have they informed the clerk of any intentions one way or the other.
It is with great regret that I note to the steering committee something they are already aware of: that on Thursday of last week the Reform Party and the Bloc Québécois withdrew their support for the committee travelling. Consequently, it was necessary to cancel the committee hearings in Atlantic Canada this week. I have heard several comments in the press and there are a couple of things I would like to state. Then I would give the floor to -
Oh, thank God. Better late than never. I change the tone and say we have now been joined by a member of the official opposition.
[Translation]
I'm sorry, Mr.?
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, B.Q.): Jacob.
The Chair: Jacob.
[English]
I knew that.
I was just stating that I've been informed that both the official opposition and the third party have withdrawn their support for the committee to travel. Is that correct?
.1535
I am responding here, both as the chair and as the member for Halifax, to certain statements made in the press. I just wanted to reiterate that the committee's plan on this report, as agreed to by all members of this committee, both the steering committee and the full committee, was to consider housing, social services, child care, spousal issues, and adjustment to and from military life and civilian life.
I would like to note further that Halifax is Canada's largest naval port. The area has over 8,000 regular forces personnel, almost 4,000 civilian employees, and numerous contract and spin-off employees. Maritime Command is headquartered in Halifax. The air force has a base at Shearwater, just across the harbour from Halifax, and at Greenwood, which was the place of the visit intended for Wednesday of this coming week. A visit to the Gagetown land force in New Brunswick was scheduled for Thursday and Friday.
I want to note further for the record of the steering committee that some of the people who wish to make submissions to SCONDVA in Halifax and who had to be cancelled at the last minute were the chair of the Military Family Resource Centre Advisory Board, Mrs. Gloria Kelly; the coordinator of the Francophone Spousal Network, Ms Liliane Bourassa; the director of the Community Resources Centre, Shearwater, Ms Celeste Gotell; the formation social worker, Captain March; the retired career manager for cooks and stewards, Mr. Slaughter; the director of the Dibert Family Resource Centre, Ms Eva Marks; and the past chair of the United Way of Metro Halifax and also past president of Maritime Tel & Tel, Mr. Ivan Duvar.
There was a planned meeting with 20 spouses at the PMQ in Windsor Park in Halifax. There were planned informal sessions with members and their families at the Shearwater base, with a supper planned for the committee with approximately 150 military and their spouses. A meeting was scheduled with 30 military of all ranks at CFB Halifax, including naval reserves and submariners who live in single quarters. There was another planned meeting with Canadian Forces personnel in the Stadacona chiefs and petty officers mess for about 100 military of all ranks and 50 spouses.
In all, it was intended that SCONDVA would meet with approximately 1,395 military and civilian members of the Department of National Defence, plus 520 spouses and numerous civic leaders, all ranks, including submariners, naval reserve, and regular forces of all three elements, representatives of both official languages, and both genders in the working and living environments, for a free and frank discussion.
Mr. Bertrand, I believe you had something you wanted to add.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle, Lib.): If I may, I would like to comment on what Mr. Hart apparently said in the Hill Times and I'm quoting the journalist:
[English]
- Mr. Hart denies that support for travel was suddenly withdrawn. He said it was never there to
begin with.
I attended several committee meetings. The Reform Party members were there, as were the B.Q. members. Everyone seemed to agree that this was a very important study, not only for us, government members, but especially for the people who live on military bases. He says that he has never given his support. I find that hypocritical, because during the four or five meetings, Mr. Hart could have told us that he didn't agree. I think that everyone was under the impression that the members of the third party had agreed on our visiting the various military bases.
He said something else in the same article, and again I quote:
[English]
- Travel by the committee - at a cost of $1 million - adds little of value, said Mr. Hart.
[Translation]
That is something else that surprised me, Madam Chair, because on several occasions, members of his party have visited various parts of the world. For example, in November, while I cannot remember which committee -
[English]
There is an item about committee interest in expanding circumpolar ties.
The Chair: I think it's foreign affairs, actually.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Foreign affairs.
[Translation]
At any rate, on several occasions, Reform Party members have visited other countries. For example, they went to Scandinavia one time, and another time to Russia and Finland. So, Madam Chair, my conclusion is that for the Reform Party -
[English]
The Chair: It's more interesting to go to Russia than it is to go to Halifax.
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: That is what I was going to say, Madam Chair. For them, visiting other parts of the world is more important than visiting Canada and trying to resolve the problems facing our armed forces.
Madam Chair, that concludes what I wanted to say. Thank you very much.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Bertrand.
Did you have anything you'd like to add, Mr. Jacob?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Yes, I would like to add something, but perhaps not along the same lines as Mr. Bertrand. I was not present at the previous meetings when consent for travel to Halifax or Gagetown was discussed. However, Mr. Richardson and Mr. Bertrand have been members of the National Defence committee since the start of 1994, and I think that everyone is aware of the social and economic problems facing members of the armed forces.
There were even two studies conducted at National Defence, one by lieutenant-colonel Oehring. There was also a report by two base chaplains that targeted all of the social problems facing people living on the various Canadian bases.
If the Bloc Québécois refused to participate, it was perhaps because of the cost, but there was also the fact that we have been aware of these problems for two or three years. Madam Chair, I can send you a report on these problems dated the end of June 1994 that we have not taken into account.
[English]
The Chair: Which report would that be, Mr. Jacob?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: There is the one I mentioned; a report by lieutenant-colonel Oehring on social problems. There was a second report by another officer, that I have right here -
[English]
The Chair: Colonel who?
[Translation]
Mr. Robert Bertrand: What was the officer's name?
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Lieutenant-colonel Oehring.
[English]
The Chair: Okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: There is also another report that was prepared by a senior officer.
[English]
The Chair: And what is the topic of this?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Essentially, it deals with social and economic problems.
[English]
The Chair: Have you read the report?
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Yes, I have read the report. I have this report, and I can give you this report, but I don't have it here.
The Chair: Does it relate to housing, social services, child care, spousal issues, adjustment to and from military life and civilian life?
Mr. John Richardson (Perth - Wellington - Waterloo, Lib.): This is George Oehring.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: There were some things on housing, but overall, these two reports... As I say, I could get them, because I do not have them here.
[English]
The Chair: How about spousal issues?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: It deals with social and economic problems. Remember that a year and a half or two years ago, there were members of the armed forces who were going to a soup kitchen in western Canada or who were applying for social assistance. These reports addressed those issues. They are internal DND reports.
So our reasons were related to the cost but also to the fact that we are already aware of these problems and that nothing has been done to resolve them. Instead, we should refer to these reports and make some changes. The minister of National Defence, by giving privates a bit of a raise, has already made a major improvement. You can say that it is an election move, but let's say that that is not important.
.1545
If you would like these reports, I can send them to you. I have them.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jacob.
Although this may make me appear to be rather naive, being merely a woman, I'd like to make the comment that I can just imagine the warm, fuzzy response spousal issues might have received in those particular reports. However, we'll let that go.
I would also suggest to you, as I have suggested to Mr. Hart, that the issues go a little further than the issue of pay. I really do think it's unfortunate that a parliamentary committee is being stifled in its wish to go to the people and to hear from those who are experiencing the problems. I also think it's interesting - and I will quote from Mr. Bertrand's comments that he made a little earlier - that clearly it was okay for the Bloc to go to Sweden, Russia, Helsinki and places that, and it didn't cost too much then. But it's too expensive to hear Canadians in the province of Quebec, because of course that was one of the places we were planning on going to. However, that's as it may be.
Mr. Richardson, did you wish to make a comment?
Mr. John Richardson: What we are trying to do as a committee is different from what was contained in George Oehring's report.
The Chair: Exactly.
Mr. John Richardson: George was commissioned by the commander of the army to look at morale, promotion, and conditions of service in the forces. That was back in 1992, I think. He tabled his report in 1993. I could be out by a year there.
The Chair: I would be very surprised if that report deals, for example, with some of the issues in the armed forces that we have discussed, both as a steering committee and a full committee, although perhaps not in Mr. Jacob's presence, such as the spousal issues, which we were particularly concerned about, gender equality and things like that.
Mr. John Richardson: It didn't include the broad-based issues this committee is concerned about. But his report was good.
The Chair: I'm sure it was, as far as it went.
Mr. John Richardson: It had a focus that was different and narrower in nature. In the forces we're now faced with the issue of downsizing and the big-base concept, and we're looking at issues with regard to the spouses and the children who are involved in the situation.
The Chair: It's a very different program.
Also, because Mr. Jacob was not involved with the committee during the early stages of dealing with the report, perhaps he is unaware that we were also asked to contextualize the issue of services to the armed forces within the services to the larger community, which of course would be a little difficult to do while sitting in Ottawa.
I believe Mister -
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Madam Chair -
[English]
The Chair: Yes, I see you. Just wait a moment.
Mr. Richardson, did you wish to make a motion?
Mr. John Richardson: Yes.
The Chair: I realize we'll have to take it to the full committee.
Mr. John Richardson: I think we should make a motion that this committee should rise again and complete its job because of the strong need out there to see this investigated and rationalized. We also have to synthesize it and report back. If we can do that, we'll have provided a great service to those people who are living on the bases under some of these conditions. So I'll move that the committee request the authorization of the House of Commons to travel in April and May to various Canadian bases and to hold hearings in relation to its study of the social and economic challenges facing the members of the Canadian Forces.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Richardson.
As you all know, that has to go to the full committee.
Madam Clerk, is it necessary for me to take a vote, or do we just agree to take it to the full committee?
The Clerk of the Committee: We don't have to have a vote. As long as the members here generally agree, there's no problem.
The Chair: Do you want to vote?
Some hon. members: Yes.
The Chair: All right. We can have discussion first. I believe Mr. Jacob wanted to say something.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: I also have the report by a chaplain whose name I don't recall, which mentions marital problems, divorce, official languages, children's education, and so on. All of these issues were in the report that dates back to the end of 1994 or the start of 1995.
.1550
I do not think that we have considered them. It would have been interesting to discuss them in committee. They deal precisely with the aspects you mentioned.
[English]
The Chair: Possibly, but it doesn't mention by a parliamentary committee, Mr. Jacob.
Motion agreed to
The Chair: Is there any further business? Then I would ask the clerk to arrange that there be a meeting of the full committee on Wednesday of this week at 3:30 p.m. Are you having your caucus meeting on Wednesday?
Mr. Jacob: Yes, but it will take place in the morning.
The Chair: Okay.
The meeting is adjourned.