[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.1537 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.)): I'd like to call this meeting to order.
I would like to welcome back Colonel Pierre Lemay. Perhaps you would like to introduce your colleagues.
Colonel Pierre Lemay (Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence): There's Colonel Glen Nordick and Lieutenant-Colonel Jean-Pierre Cyr.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I believe you have an opening statement you'd like to give us.
Col Lemay: Madam Chair, members of the committee, I'm very pleased to be back to give you a brief outline of the travel and relocation benefits available to Canadian Forces personnel. As well, I will discuss subjects of concern to both the leadership and the Canadian Forces members in this area.
The National Defence Act authorized the Governor in Council to make regulations respecting the rates and conditions of travel and the relocation benefits for the Canadian Forces. As is the case for pay, these regulations are published as the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces. Changes to these benefits can only be obtained through a formal Treasury Board submission that the Governor in Council must approve.
In large measure, the Canadian Forces travel and relocation benefits mirror those for the public service as established by the National Joint Council of the Public Service. The National Joint Council consists of union and management representatives in working committees responsible for the triennial reviews and the negotiation of benefits in several major categories. Changes to Canadian Forces benefits require separate approval, but are often triggered by changes resulting from the National Joint Council's triennial reviews.
The director of compensation and benefits administration is the senior Canadian Forces representative on the government travel committee of the National Joint Council, which is responsible for travel and relocation policy.
The joint Treasury Board and Department of National Defence advisory group on military compensation also participates in the consideration of changes to the Canadian Forces relocation benefits.
[Translation]
Nevertheless, mobility is one of the most unique aspects of the military, and a predominant difference between the Public Service and the Canadian Forces. As a result, there is often a need to seek approval for benefits based on unique military requirements. Such proposals should occur in conjunction with, or separate from the National Joint Council review process, but in each case, require Governor-in-Council approval based on a Treasury Board recommendation.
.1540
Essentially, Canadian Forces personnel are entitled to the reimbursement of actual and reasonable necessary expenses incurred as a result of directed travel or relocation. This compensation is, for the most part, not related to salary or rank, but rather to the actual expenses incurred by the member.
The reimbursement of actual and reasonable expenses for members on Temporary Duty travel is in virtual lock step with the Public Service, and there are no significant issues in this area. There is, however, a significant push to reduce administrative costs through the simplification of procedures.
[English]
Concerning relocation benefits, they fall essentially into three broad categories: those available to homeowners, those available to renters, and those common to both homeowners and renters.
The homeowner benefits provide for the reimbursement of most expenses related to the sale or purchase of a home. For example, they include real estate and legal fees, any other expenses incurred to complete the sale of a house at the old place of duty, and/or the legal fees and expenses incurred to buy a house at the new location. Most fees are based on limits set by the Department of National Defence through agreements with professionals in the trade in each province.
Members may also be reimbursed for mortgage-related costs, such as discharge fees, mortgage penalties, and Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation default insurance premiums, when such insurance is required by law.
There is also some degree of protection against rising interest rates. A member who must arrange a new mortgage at a higher interest rate as a result of a move may be reimbursed for the interest he would not have had to pay had the old mortgage run to maturity.
[Translation]
Although not desirable, there are situations in which members must take up residence at the new location before they can sell their home, as a result of short notice postings and unfavourable real estate markets.
In these cases, Temporary Dual Residence Assistance provides limited reimbursement of expenses related to the maintenance of the unsold house, and interim financing allows for the reimbursement of the interest on an equity loan needed to complete the purchase of a home before the old one is sold. The maximum period of assistance for both these benefits is 12 months.
Homeowners are also entitled to the home equity assistance benefit, on which I will provide more details later.
In the case of members who rent, the Canadian Forces will reimburse the cost of breaking a lease. The penalty is normally two months' rent. The reimbursements will also cover up to one month's rent for the services of a rental agency, and one month's rent to hold an accommodation.
Members renting may also be eligible for the Accommodation Assistance Allowance in designated high cost areas. This benefit is a taxable allowance which is paid on a monthly basis according to rank, family size and type of accommodation rented. It was designed to address situations where the average rental cost, in the designated locations, is a least 12.5% above the national average experienced by Canadian Forces members. I will speak a bit more about the Accommodation Assistance Allowance when I address the current initiatives in a few moments.
.1545
[English]
In addition to those benefits specifically directed at homeowners and renters, the Canadian Forces provides a variety of relocation benefits that are available to all members.
The Canadian Forces relocation program provides the services of a contracted relocation consultant, currently Royal LePage relocation services, to assist and advise personnel in making their decision as to whether they should rent or buy, and in assessing the type of house they should look for based on factors such as their family size, financial resources and education needs. The relocation services also provide advice and strategies for planning house-hunting trips and mortgage financing, where applicable.
The Canadian Forces relocation program has been operating now for more than five years. It's partly credited with increasing the number of successful house-hunting trips as well as contributing to reduced costs for interim accommodation.
The posting allowance was approved by the Treasury Board in 1981. In essence, this allowance is compensation for all those intangible costs that members and their families must experience upon posting. Briefly, this includes the turbulence related to a relocation, the separation from family and friends, the emotional effect of frequent posting on children, the loss of a secondary income and career, the disruption of schooling, and related housing problems.
Based on a subjective assessment of these factors, the Treasury Board approved, on the recommendation of the joint Treasury Board and DND advisory group on military compensation, that half a month's pay would be equitable compensation for single personnel or members who choose not to relocate their dependents. An additional half a month's pay would be provided when the remainder of the family was moved.
[Translation]
The transportation and travelling expense reimbursements for Canadian Forces members on relocation are very similar to the Public Service. The member and spouse are also entitled to be reimbursed for transportation and daily living expenses for a house hunting trip to the new location to secure accommodation.
During the actual move, members are reimbursed actual and reasonable expenses for transportation, accommodation and meals for the whole family both enroute and for a reasonable period of time at the new location.
Of course, the Department covers the costs related to the actual move of the member's furniture and effects, and ships most personal effects. To cover miscellaneous expenses that may not be anticipated or covered by movers, for example, preparing appliances for shipping or charges for disconnecting or connecting utilities, members receive a non-taxable Movement Grant.
This grant should not be confused with the Posting Allowance which is not directly related to actual expenses, but rather to the turbulence and disruption of relocating.
[English]
Finally, in situations where members must proceed to the new place of duty without their families, they may receive the separation expense. This allowance is provided either in the form of rations and quarters at no cost to the member or in the form of a reimbursement of expenses incurred to obtain the commercial equivalent.
A separation expense essentially occurs in two ways. It's for operational missions when families are not authorized to move, or when members request an imposed restriction on the move of their family for personal reasons, such as the loss of spousal employment or a career, the inability to sell a house, or the disruption of the children's education. An imposed-restriction situation is normally for one year, but can be extended in exceptional circumstances.
The requirement for members of the Canadian Forces to be frequently on the move causes significant concerns over their quality of life when they must leave their families behind or when they must face the loss of a spousal income or career, the loss of home equity, the disruption of child education, and possibly higher accommodation costs at the new place of duty.
.1550
These relocations now occur in a rapidly changing environment in which, for many, dual income has become a necessity to maintain an acceptable standard of living. The initiative I will now discuss speaks to these concerns.
[Translation]
As I indicated earlier, the Accommodation Assistance Allowance provides financial assistance to members of the Canadian Forces who are required to serve in geographic locations where local rental costs exceed by 12.5% the weighted national average rental rates where Canadian Forces personnel serve.
A recent review concluded that the Accommodation Assistance Allowance, or a similar benefit, is required now more that ever, and it needs to be updated to address the realities of the Canadian Forces today.
Some of these realities are: a new Canadian Forces housing policy which relies on the Accommodation Assistance Allowance to ensure affordability; personnel relocation policies that will call for generally fewer postings over the span of a career, which will result in members posted to high rental cost areas for longer periods of time, with the probability of "catch-up" postings to low cost locations much less likely to occur than before.
A survey of over 2,000 Canadian Forces personnel in 1995 identified Accommodation Assistance Allowance as a major compensation dissatisfier. The main reason for this dissatisfaction being that the Accommodation Assistance Allowance, "after tax dollars", cover less than 40% of the difference between the actual cost and the national average.
There is also the requirement to pay the Accommodation Assistance Allowance to members employed on Class "B" Reserve Service for more than 180 days.
[English]
The imposed restriction policy and its attendant intended benefit of separation expenses are currently authorized at the request of members who, having been relocated to another place of duty, do not wish to move their family immediately, based on considerations such as the loss of spousal employment or career, or the children's education.
An imposed restriction is normally tried for a period of one year. However, in exceptional circumstances where the situation which prevents the move of dependants cannot be resolved, extension to the one-year period may be authorized. Extension can only be approved by using established criteria, and the eventual move of dependants may not be authorized if it's not cost-effective to do so because of insufficient time remaining in the tour of duty.
The question remains as to what should be the limitations of the Canadian Forces' responsibility in these cases and whether members should be expected to move with their families on posting. With changing lifestyles, societal requirements and organizational restructuring and rationalization, there are a considerable number of views on whether and for how long Canadian Forces personnel should be entitled to dual residency expenses when the reasons for separation are essentially personal but created by military requirements.
For several years the Canadian Forces have been attempting to obtain approval for a benefit which would assist single parents when they are required to incur additional child care costs as a result of travel or deployments directed by the Canadian Forces.
The Canadian Forces child care assistance would be based on a similar benefit introduced for public servants travelling on government business, but would include additional unique military provisions that could allow payment of these costs when members are deployed or on operation for up to six months.
Essentially, single parents whose children are all under 16 years of age would be reimbursed any additional child care expenses incurred as a result of being separated from their children for any period of temporary duty or posting, deployment or exercise. The rate of reimbursement would be the same as that established by the Treasury Board for the public service.
.1555
The current public service benefit applies only to business travel of up to four months, and it does not apply to crew members aboard coast guard and fishery vessels while they are on normal sea duty. It is, however, the department's contention that the unique requirement for military members to serve on operational deployment for periods of up to six months makes the longer duration and broader application of this benefit essential in order to avoid inequitable treatment within the Canadian Forces.
[Translation]
The Home Equity Assistance Benefit was approved in recognition of the demanding mobile lifestyle of Canadian Forces members and their families, and it is available only to Canadian Forces personnel and to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Force.
This assistance compensates military members on relocation for 90 percent of their equity loss, from purchase price, upon the selling of their home where local market values of comparable homes have fallen at least 10% over their period of ownership.
A major dissatisfier of this benefit stems from the qualification criterion that the local market values for comparable homes must have dropped by at least 10 percent. Many members who suffer significant losses on the sale of their home receive no compensation because the local market has not declined enough, let's say 8% vice 10%, while others who suffer smaller losses still receive compensation provided that the 10% market decline has been demonstrated.
The Home Equity Assistance provisions are being reviewed to study cost neutral proposals that would eliminate the 10% market decline criterion, but that would incorporate a deductible provision.
[English]
Finally, the guaranteed home sale plan is a Treasury Board approved pilot project, which the Department of National Defence adopted in May 1996, to facilitate the quicker and less turbulent move of employees and members by providing a guaranteed sale price for their home based on current market value. The initial experience with the guaranteed home sale plan has been very positive. More than 40% of houses were sold within the first 90 days, and the average loss to the Crown is within 1% of the guaranteed price.
The pilot project is set to run until March 1998. The evaluation of the final results will determine whether or not a permanent program is to be established and what impact this program will have on the make-up and delivery of other relocation services and benefits.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, members of the Canadian Forces today aspire increasingly for stability, both social and economic. They are more and more concerned with the stability of their family, spousal income and career, home equity, dependant education and, indeed, the whole question of what the future holds. Moreover, the requirement for dual pension income at retirement will be a growing concern in the next century.
That being said, mobility is an important factor in the ability of the Department of National Defence to meet its operational requirements. There continues to be a great deal of logic for all employees of the same employer, whether military or civilian, to have their travel and relocation benefits treated the same. However, this department believes that given the uniqueness of military life, comparability is not always practicable, nor should it be deemed applicable in all circumstances.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you again on Canadian Forces compensation and benefits.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Colonel Lemay.
Just relax, gentlemen. I'm going to do something that I almost never do, and jump in with a couple of questions of my own before I go to the opposition members. You can either answer these questions now or get back to me later.
You mentioned child care. I gather that there is currently no institutionalized child care for single parents in the forces who would have to go to sea or to the Gulf War or something like that. Is that correct?
.1600
Col Lemay: That's correct. There is no child care benefit available to Canadian Forces members.
The Chair: Okay. So is anybody looking into dealing with that, particularly given the increased activity of women?
Col Lemay: The department has been working with the secretariat on this file for quite some time. The public service has had a child care benefit for single parents since 1989. Since that time, we've been attempting to get a child care benefit not only with the provisions that are available in the public services, but with additional provisions to cover our members who are asked to serve on operations. Although we've made some progress, we haven't been successful in resolving all of our differences yet, but we are getting closer.
As I mentioned in the presentation, one of the concerns that has been expressed is that some public service employees are employed on coast guard ships. There's some concern that if members of the Canadian Forces had that benefit when going on operations at sea, it could present some problems.
The Chair: So what you're effectively dealing with would be purely a financial benefit. You're not looking at some kind of institutionalized program.
Col Lemay: That's correct, it would be a financial benefit that single parents would have access to if their particular -
The Chair: Got it.
Particularly in the case of parents of either sex going to sea, going off to peacekeeping duties or whatever, and leaving their normal place of residence, has anyone ever suggested that it might be worth investigating some sort of actual program whereby the children could be cared for, rather than just the payment? This kind of care is among the most difficult of child care provisions in the country. Is there any talk of that at all in the armed forces?
Col Lemay: I am not aware of one. It may be that in certain units at certain bases, and through the family support program, there may have been discussions about creating the type of child care you are referring for that particular unit, but I'm not aware of a program being discussed at the national level.
The Chair: This is my last question, and then I'll give it over.
You may have discovered that you touched a nerve. I know there are child care facilities on some bases - for example, I've visited the one at Shearwater - but is this the norm or not the norm? Do you have any idea how many child care centres we might have that are sponsored by DND?
Col Lemay: I don't have that answer.
The Chair: Could you find out?
Col Lemay: Yes, ma'am.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Monsieur Jacob.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): I have no questions. I give up my turn.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Frazer.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Colonel Lemay and Colonel Nordick, I'd like to welcome you. Congratulations. The last time I saw you, I think you were on parade with the lieutenant colonel, turning over your battalion at Work Point. It's nice to have you here, too, Colonel Cyr.
Colonel Lemay, you mentioned designated high-cost areas. Could you define just what you mean? What standard are they measured against?
Col Lemay: Because the policy of the government is to charge market rates, sir, each year the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation goes around to all of the facilities we have. Through a process of evaluation, it determines the price of accommodation at each location. What we do is take those numbers and with a series of formulae we calculate what the national average is. If the cost at a particular location is 12.5% more than that average, that location then becomes entitled to receive the accommodation assistance allowance.
Did I answer your question?
Mr. Jack Frazer: Yes, you have, but I'm just questioning the wisdom or the logic of that. Surely what should be taken into account are the pay scale of the individual who is residing in that area and what it costs him or her to live in that area. The adjustments should be made based on what is reasonable to allow them to live to the standard that could be expected.
.1605
I'm concerned about an umbrella-type organization that doesn't deal with specifics. An example is that this weighted national average must exceed 12.5%. At $1,000 a month, that's $125. That's a lot of loot out of that amount, so I wonder if 12.5% is a reasonable requirement. It's a pretty high percentage.
Col Lemay: Regarding the 12.5% trigger, when the benefit was created in 1981, it was designed to address matters at a time when there were more specific problems in the Calgary area. As for why it's 12.5%, and not 13% or 11%, I can't answer that question. In the file that we looked into, it was a decision made at the time. At the time, the conclusion may have been that when the locations that were looked at would be in or out, or not in or not out, 12.5% was the trigger that was going to do the trick. So for why it's 12.5% and not 10%, that's the answer to that question.
Regarding the process, over time there were a number of studies on cost of living differences between locations. Although these studies were able to identify that a difference in the cost of living existed, they had difficulties in determining how to define the amount of the allowance between locations.
If you push it somewhat further, when you assess the cost of living difference between provinces, you might also get into provincial programs and taxation levels. All of a sudden, you might be in the fairly sensitive area of comparing one provincial program to another one.
The conclusion of the latest study on the subject was that because 70% of the differences that could be evaluated between locations was correlated to accommodations, it was thought this was an easier way to set an allowance and deal with it over time. It was easier to link the differences in cost to accommodation than it was to attempt to define all the other differences between locations.
Mr. Jack Frazer: I submit to you that overseas it has been established for a long time that you have a rating that is designed according to whatever post is there, and your pay is adjusted in accordance with that. I would think a better way to deal with people is to make the pay that they get equitable, no matter where they live in the country. I therefore fail to see why 12.5% should be in there. Whether you live in Halifax, in Victoria, in Ottawa or Toronto, you should be able to get a comparable wage to give you the.... You don't have a choice about where you go; you're told where to go. There's no promotion involved, and there's no advancement involved in many cases. So it strikes me that we aren't looking at a system that assures equity for the individual servicemen or servicewomen, no matter where they're sent to live.
Col Lemay: Certainly, sir, your suggestion about the system we use overseas is a good one. It is different from the one in Canada. In our analysis, in our look at this benefit, if this allowance could be non-taxable or if it could be grossed up to defeat the taxation aspect, it certainly would go a long way toward making up for the differences.
Right now, the major difficulty for the allowance is that after we have gone through a number of iterations and the taxation aspect, people end up getting 40% of the difference in their pockets at the end of the day. If it wasn't taxed and they got 75% of the difference, it would make a big difference in places like Esquimalt.
.1610
Mr. Jack Frazer: My concern is this paragraph just towards the end of your presentation where you say many members who suffer significant losses on the sale of their homes receive no compensation because local markets have not declined, let's say, 8% or 10%. It strikes me that this is pure bureaucracy and it isn't looking after the needs of the people. Surely that can be addressed. Surely there has to be some common sense and surely some flexibility has to be given to the people who are adjudicating these programs.
Col Lemay: Yes, sir. With respect to the 10% trigger, we were given this benefit after the RCMP got it. They got it first. We agree with you that the 10% trigger is not very popular because it creates inequities. We're working right now on trying to come up with a better system, a more equitable system for everyone, within the current constraints that are given to us. Whatever other system we recommend to the minister would have to be a cost-neutral situation.
Mr. Jack Frazer: I have one last question if I may, Madam Chair.
Is this restriction imposed by the Treasury Board? Could this committee recommend that Treasury Board have a look at this?
Col Lemay: The current program that we have and the 10% on this home equity assistance program is imposed by Treasury Board. This is the program.
Mr. Jack Frazer: So if we felt it was appropriate, we could recommend that this be examined and perhaps rectified by the Treasury Board.
Col Lemay: Yes, sir.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria - Haliburton, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Colonel, for attending.
I spent 22 years in the real estate business and found that the most difficult plan to figure out was a military move. Of all the plans there are, it is the most difficult to work out. There are many similarities. For instance, on moving costs, it would be very easy to make sure that's covered and reimbursed. The loss of a second income is something else that has to be considered. The move from one area to another where you lose your deposit on an apartment if you're renting because you've cancelled your lease early and that type of thing.... You've covered all of those in here, but I don't understand the administration of a plan that has so many traps in it.
To me, that 10% thing on the sale of a house is absolutely crazy. Why wouldn't you just go to a straight appraisal system? And whatever the losses are, they're the losses. There's a model out there, you see, when you get into that type of thing. I don't consider anything unique to the military and the RCMP that is a similarity in other businesses. So what I'm getting at is that it isn't compatible with the civil service in the way you move people.
When you look for a model, you would look at a very successful model like a bank plan for how the banks move their employees around. It's a similar situation. Whatever bank you work for, if your particular expertise is needed in another area, whether it's a lateral move or an upward move, the bank offers you a guaranteed sales plan based on three appraisals, so you know your house is sold and in sixty days you're gone. You can choose your own broker for the first thirty days and you can choose your own sale price, but after that it falls into the guaranteed plan based on legitimate qualified appraisals. In sixty days you know your house is gone, it's sold, and you are immediately given the assistance on the other end to buy another house.
The problem with the military is that you could hang on for 120 days or two years and own a house on both ends and have a family on both ends trying.... In a small measure, it's like members of Parliament coming here. My wife has learned to change light bulbs and cut the grass -
The Chair: Watch it, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. John O'Reilly: - and shovel snow -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. John O'Reilly: - and some of the things that I ordinarily did around the house.
I didn't do them well, Mary -
The Chair: And learn to walk and chew gum -
Mr. John O'Reilly: Yes, just slightly.
You can cover moving expenses and packing and take out the part where if a person wants to move their own things they're given a bonus for it. You just automatically fit into that plan. Why wouldn't you recommend going to a simple model that's already there and thereby eliminate all this stuff of 12.5% here and 10% there?
If you move from Halifax to Toronto or Vancouver or if you move from Toronto to Trenton or into the Belleville area from Vancouver, nobody will ever complain to you about an increase in the cost of their house when they sell it. The losses are very easy to estimate. Gains you don't have to worry about. That's a bonus that's built in.
.1615
So why wouldn't you go to a model that is already successful in industry and make it very simple for the military to move? Make it a bonus to move. Don't make it so detrimental that it's the worst thing that can possibly happen to you.
Col Lemay: We are very pleased with and encouraged by the results of the pilot project. We have a guaranteed home sale program right now, which started last summer. It's a pilot project, and it runs from April 1, 1996, to March 31, 1998. People don't have to participate in it. It's similar to the one you mentioned, where two or three appraisals are made and and if the appraisals are within a certain range, we go on. It is offered, but they don't have to participate in it.
Now, this program is scheduled to end in March 1998. I cannot presuppose what the report is going to be, but speaking for the members of the Canadian Forces, I'm sure that all of them hope that this program will become permanent. So if your committee thinks that a program like this is what is needed for the Canadian forces, I would certainly encourage you to comment on our current program.
Under the home equity assistance program it was sometimes difficult for the member to demonstrate a 10% loss in the market, so we've linked the appraisal under the guaranteed home sale program to this other program, and we use these appraisals to determine if the member qualifies. A member knows within five days if he qualifies for the home equity assistance program. If he chooses not to use the guaranteed home sale program, we pay for the appraisal of the house in order to determine if he qualifies under the home equity assistance program.
In regard to why 10% was chosen, I can't answer that question. At the time the Treasury Board approved the benefit they set it at 10%. I suspect that at a certain point people are going to suggest that there should be a trigger of some kind. People are saying, ``We're not asking for something when you make money. We don't like the 10% trigger. We would like to have a more equitable formula.'' At this time the constraint that has been put on us is that it has to be cost-neutral. So we're looking at options where maybe there would be a deductible of some kind and things of that nature.
I hope I've answered your question about the guaranteed home sale aspect, anyway.
Mr. John O'Reilly: My point is that it shouldn't be a model or a pilot project, it should be used. It should be the standard under which to move people. You're in a different society now than you have been in the past, and mobility is very important. Obviously the biggest problem for anyone in the military is being moved. You would think that your highest priority would be to make that as easy as possible. Instead of that, it seems to be a terrible burden. It's almost as if you're being punished if you and your family are moved.
I would hope that in our report we would be able to recommend something that's very simple and that has already been tried in other industries where people are moved.
With regard to the travel option where you have this pay equivalent of 80% and you pay someone to use a car to drive somewhere to look at something and you pay for their hotel and all that, I would think there's a very simple way to do that: you just receipt them. The person who is going to a place where there are very few hotels or motels and so forth would be at a disadvantage compared to someone who is going to a city. So I would hope that you would look at a cost for interim lodging, meals and that sort of thing that would be geared to the area you're putting the person into, because some of the areas you go to are pretty primitive, and it would be difficult to find something you may have to live in for a long time.
Sometimes the rules the military imposes on their members are a disadvantage, and what we're looking at right now is probably one of the biggest aggravations in being in the military.
.1620
I don't know why you'd let people move themselves. Half them would end up with a back injury, and they'd be no good to you when they got to the other end. I would think those are the types of things that should be included. If you're in the military, you shouldn't have to try to save money by moving yourself.
Col Lemay: We discontinued that last year.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Good. You're stepping up, then.
Why would the government not have a lease plan available if someone had to rent a car in order to go somewhere and look at property, instead of the person having do it at their own expense? It would appear that every time I see a vehicle that has a government stamp on it, it's a military one. So I was wondering why that particular option isn't one a person could take advantage of.
Col Lemay: If you'll allow me, I'll have Major Callaghan answer that.
Major W.J. Callaghan (Travel and Relocation Policy, Department of National Defence): There is, in fact, a plan that allows you to lease a car. You get reimbursed for leases. The government has set rates that are established with all the major car rental agencies, and you will be reimbursed for the rental of a car for a house-hunting trip or while on temporary duty or whatever. So it is available.
Mr. John O'Reilly: But it's a very complicated plan, is it not?
Maj Callaghan: No, it's a fairly straightforward plan whereby you rent a car from the local rental agency, Budget or whatever - I don't want to name companies here - at the government rates that are established, and when you turn in your claim, you get reimbursed for the amount you paid out.
Mr. John O'Reilly: But I heard that it took 60 days to get permission. Is that correct?
Maj Callaghan: No.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Is there instant permission, once you're transferred, to incur these expenses? You don't have to -
Maj Callaghan: As the colonel has already mentioned, once you know you're being moved, you go to a relocation consultant, who briefs you on what your benefits are and what your entitlements are. From there you are recommended to go on a house-hunting trip, which normally lasts from five to seven days. You make your own arrangements to charter your aircraft or to rent a car while you're there. It's a fairly straightforward situation.
Mr. John O'Reilly: I won't ask you any more questions on that.
Are you saying that the breaking of leases and the buying and selling of houses are the big disadvantages to the moves?
Col Lemay: I don't think so, sir. I think we have in place all the regulations necessary to reimburse people for the expenses involved with breaking leases. That's not an area I'm aware of where there are difficulties.
Maj Callaghan: You mentioned the cash payment for relocation expenses. This is a project we've been working on for the last couple of years in order to simplify some of our reimbursement procedures. It doesn't really change any benefits. It just simplifies the claims procedure.
In the case where somebody knows where they're going, already has a house there and is in the process of travelling there, we now provide them with an 80% solution whereby we'll give them a cash payment that will cover their expenses for the travel there and for their interim lodgings before they occupy their house. The purpose of that is to get rid of having to turn in receipts later on. That speeds up the process, because the actual settlement of a claim for receipts could take up to 60 days. That's the thing we're trying to streamline.
Mr. John O'Reilly: So it's not a 20% disadvantage, then; it's an 80% bonus.
The Chair: You're cut off, Mr. O'Reilly.
Mr. John O'Reilly: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Hart.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt, Ref.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
It's nice to see you again, Colonel.
Col Lemay: Thank you.
Mr. Jim Hart: It's good to have you here.
.1625
Following up on the chair's comments on child care, I think this institutionalized child care for the Canadian Armed Forces is something that would be a very costly program.
My concern there - and I think I'm just making this point for the members of the committee - is that we have a declining defence budget. Institutionalized day care may seem like a solution, but the problem I see is if we keep giving additional programs like that to military personnel, we won't be sending our people anywhere anyway because we won't be able to afford it. The budget is pretty much cut to the bone as it is, as I understand.
Although I don't think we should ignore that problem, I think if we explore areas in our tax system we may be able to come up with a better solution than institutionalized day care for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Although there are unique characteristics that members of the forces do have to face, I think we do have to realize that it is a volunteer service, and people do recognize and do have the ability to understand what that service entails before they enter the service.
Keeping those points in mind, my preference would be looking at tax plans that would help people in a situation where they are a single-parent family and are posted out of the country.
I think everybody around this table, and Canadians in general, are concerned about the social and economic problems facing military personnel. It's very disturbing when we hear the stories of people in Esquimalt having to go on welfare or drive taxis or other things like that just to make ends meet. So I don't think you'll find much reluctance in members of Parliament in this report talking about things like pay raises or....
Certainly I've mentioned one tax area already, but I think maybe an additional tax exemption or an increase to the basic personal amount that's allowed on the tax form because they are participating in military service, either regular force or reserve force, is something we can explore.
The mobility is very important, as well, and there may also be ways we can address that through the tax system.
Again, to clarify, my concern is that we have a reducing budget: $8.5 billion by 1999. So we're entering the 21st century with a declining budget, and that is a problem. So I would hope this committee would look at other solutions than just the obvious ones.
Where I'm going with this now is that I -
The Chair: [Inaudible - Editor].
Mr. Jim Hart: No, that's not it, but I think taxation is a problem all Canadians have. We're overtaxed, and we should look at those areas for members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
One thing that's curious to me is that there is a reluctance of this government to act on these problems of pay. This isn't a new problem. It has been around since I've been in Parliament, for the last three and half years, and I wonder whether you have ever written or participated in an internal document by the Canadian Armed Forces that has made recommendations on this whole area that this committee is studying?
Col Lemay: I'm sorry, I'm not sure on this.
Mr. Jim Hart: We're undertaking this whole program right now in this committee to look at the social and economic impacts on members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Has there been an internal study and have recommendations been made to this government over the last three-and-a-half-year period, and are there recommendations that the armed forces has made? Is there a report sitting out there that you or others in the Canadian Armed Forces have participated in?
Col Lemay: Yes, sir.
Mr. Jim Hart: Where is that report now?
Col Lemay: For a number of years the government could not deal with a number of compensation issues because of the Public Sector Compensation Act, which froze compensation plans for almost five years. The Canadian Forces are coming out of the legislation on April 1, 1997, and there has been a large amount of work done during the freeze period to calibrate a formula and to look at benefits, to see where it could be improved and what the more pressing priorities were, trying to keep in mind, as you suggest, the fiscal climate and today's economic realities. So yes, we have participated in documents that may be considered by the Treasury Board in the near future.
.1630
Mr. Jim Hart: So those are with the Treasury Board now. I'll ask the chair and maybe the committee members if we could get a copy of those recommendations that have been made internally by the department. As it stands, I think that's important for the committee. It might cut a lot of red tape and get this committee's work completed a lot sooner.
In my opinion there's no point in reinventing the wheel. If recommendations have been made and a lot of thought has been put into them, let's get on with it and do what's right for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Those are my comments. Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Wood.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Colonel, I just want to get back to something Mr. O'Reilly talked about. I'm a little confused about it, because I guess I had a different version.
Correct me if I'm wrong here about the home ownership assistance program and the home equity assistance program. My understanding is that home equity assistance program protects military personnel from market changes and is going to pay the person 90% of the equity that is lost when his home is sold, as long as the market has dropped at least 10%.
I'm a little confused about the home ownership assistance program you've mentioned. Is it not available only to communities where bases have closed and there's a glut of homes on the market? With the HOAP program DND picks up 100% of the loss. It's really only available where you've closed the bases. Is that right or wrong?
Col Lemay: I'm sorry, sir, if my presentation created confusion about the two programs. In the presentation I was talking only about the home equity assistance program, which is available to Canadian Armed Forces members and the RCMP. It's available only to people in uniform.
The home ownership assistance program was a specific program created by the government to address the loss in equity for those members, both civilian and military, at bases closed before 1994. In fact, I think the program is from the late 1980s. That program was created to assist the personnel at those locations being closed, generally when it could be demonstrated that the loss in equity was created by the closure of the base. The program has been ongoing since 1989.
I don't recall exactly when this interdepartmental committee that advises the deputy minister on which locations should qualify for the HOAP program was put together, but I think it was for the 1994 announcement of the closure of the infrastructure. After a budget announcement that a base or station will close or will be reduced, the committee sits, and using established criteria makes recommendations to the deputy minister, who is empowered to designate locations.
Mr. Bob Wood: I just want to talk for a second about the relocation of families. A generation ago most military personnel were in single-income homes where they were the principle breadwinners. Today, of course, two-income families are the norm and the spouse's income and career aspirations are extremely important to the family. Given this reality, has any effort been made to consider the career of the second earner? Or are they just expected to give up a career in favour of the spouse's military career?
Col Lemay: I believe that in the last few years the organization has been doing more listening about the needs of its members. It is in benefits like the imposed restriction benefit where we leave more responsibility with the member if for personal reasons they would prefer to leave the family behind for some time, either for spousal employment, spousal career, children's education.... There is a process by which they can leave their family behind for one year to resolve the problems. It can be longer for exceptional circumstances.
.1635
I think that aspect of the socio-economic concerns of Canadian Forces members in the future is one of the most important ones. Traditionally, I guess if you married into the military you were expected to move. Today, the reality is that people want more stability. Like anyone else, they need a dual income to have the standard of living they wish. We have a study that demonstrates that, on average, the spouses of military members make much less money than the public service, for obvious reasons. They're concerned with stability.
On the other hand, the struggle is should we encourage people to move with their family, or should we leave it completely up to them? If we leave it up to them, where's the limitation of the government in paying for dual residency? Should it say we'll pay for three years and then it's your personal choice, or we'll pay forever, or we'll pay for one year? These are the kinds of constraints, the kinds of factors we are struggling with right now for the future.
As I suggested, tomorrow and not much later than that people will have to start thinking that if you need two incomes to have an acceptable standard of living today, you're probably going to need two pensions tomorrow. Who in the Canadian Forces have spouses who have pension plans and careers with pension plans? I would suggest to you, not too many today.
Mr. Bob Wood: Has anybody given any thought to job matching? Would it be possible to ask base personnel in various spots around Canada to set up job matching within the local business communities where the spouse is being transferred, so that they might continue their careers? As you said, if they're away for a year or a year and a half, I would imagine it's a little on the stressful side.
Col Lemay: I am not aware of formal programs, but I am aware that when people are moved, if their spouse is working in the public service, they will attempt to see if in that region.... Or with the banks, many of the banks are all over the country, and they try to work it out.
Mr. Bob Wood: Something that caught my eye was the cash move initiative pilot project. It started in 1995 and continued in 1996. You've cut out some of it, as you were talking about the move of your own furniture. Personnel are given 80% of the cost of their move in advance. By giving them this money, is there not a very strong incentive to defraud the defence department and pocket a portion of the money?
How closely are the receipts scrutinized after the soldier turns them in? Do you have the staff to back-check and do audits on these moves?
Col Lemay: What we've done, sir, with this is we had two trials. We had the one that was moving the furniture and effects. That's the one we discontinued with a number of concerns. It went for a few months and we discontinued it.
The one we're talking about now is the one about travel. We know the rates, as was suggested before. If you're going to go on a trip for five days across the country, we have all our tables and we can tell you that you're entitled up to so many dollars in that location. We can total all of this, and what we're saying to you is that we'll give you 80% of that and we're not going to ask for any receipts. So if you don't want to stay at the best hotel in town, and maybe eat at a different restaurant....
Our estimate last year is that we saved close to half a million dollars. It's a voluntary program. It's to go with the government's initiatives in trying to cut administrative programs and programs of this type. In trying to establish that, we'll give you so much, with no receipts, nothing, and -
Mr. Bob Wood: Don't come back to me with anything. You're not checking anything when you do that.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.
I have Mr. Frazer and Mr. Bertrand. Can you both go very briefly, with Mr. Frazer first?
Mr. Jack Frazer: I can, Madam Chair.
.1640
I want to go back to something I said before and your reaction to it, Colonel Lemay. With regard to the post index that's assigned to overseas posting, I think you said it was a good idea. Why is it not in vogue in Canada? If you establish a weighted national average, why can't you then establish just a simple post index for any base that you go to and apply it to the individual when that person is posted there?
Col Lemay: I apologize. When you referred to the system overseas, I thought you were referring to the system for accommodation of a rent ceiling, not to the post index system.
Mr. Jack Fraser: Why wouldn't the post index work in Canada?
Col Lemay: The post index goes back to those studies that have tried to identify the difference in costs and location in Canada. If you're going to push this to the limit, you have to get into a very complicated analysis and into government programs. I don't want to start any wars here, but if it's expensive to live in Esquimalt, it's probably because it's a nicer place to live than some other places that are not as expensive. How do you filter all of these things into the equation?
Mr. Jack Fraser: I guess what I'm suggesting to you is that you don't worry about how nice it is or how bad it is, because you don't have a choice about going there. Rather, are you able to maintain an equitable standard of living wherever you go? The post index therefore seems to answer that. You have a standard across the country and you say it's either above or below it, and away you go. You luck in if you're below it, because you're not going to take money away.
Col Lemay: Agreed, sir.
Mr. Jack Fraser: I go to when I was stationed in Africa. I was a military officer working with External Affairs people. When it came time to come home, their regulations allowed them to transport animals with them. I had to pay for mine, so I have a very expensive mongrel - and she thinks she's worth every penny of it, incidentally. But notwithstanding that, had I been with External Affairs, the department would have paid that cost. I think that's rectified now, but what I'm looking at - and what I want to ask you - is this: When compared against civilian industry benefits, is there any outstanding benefit that is provided there and that we don't provide, but which you think should be considered?
Col Lemay: I don't have one in mind right now.
Mr. Jack Fraser: Basically, then, you think military compensation is comparable to civilian or industrial benefits?
Col Lemay: I think most of the tools are there, but some of them have to be calibrated. It's like the accommodation assistance allowance. If this could be made non-taxable or if it could be grossed up to defeat the taxation effect on it, I think Canadian Forces members in general would be satisfied.
Mr. Jack Fraser: Is that recommendation incorporated in the report that my colleague referred to? Will those types of things be available to us if we get this report?
Col Lemay: I -
Mr. Jack Fraser: You don't know what's in the report?
A voice: That's Treasury Board.
The Chair: Colonel Lemay, he's referring to the internal report that Mr. Hart asked you about, and whether or not it would be available.
Col Lemay: There's no internal report by the Treasury Board as such. There are a number of advisory group papers that have been written with recommendations.
Mr. Jack Fraser: If I can go to them then, is the suggestion that you just made - the one about a tax compensation of some sort - one of the recommendations that is incorporated and that we will now have access to?
Col Lemay: Sir, I don't believe this particular aspect of it is written in any report. This has been discussed with the secretariat. At this stage, under the constraints that are put on us, they would want any change to this allowance to be cost-neutral.
People see a relationship between this allowance and the new housing policy. From our perspective, we certainly would like to see changes to the accommodation assistance allowance. In fact, this is probably one of the benefits that we need the most right now. We are going to go with longer postings. We are going to go with telling sailors that some of them are going to Esquimalt and some of them are going to Halifax, and the ones going to Esquimalt will ask why. Because we have closed so many bases and stations, if you're selected to go to Esquimalt you might be there for a long time.
.1645
One of the improvements we need most is to have an allowance that is going to put in some equity or bridge the gap in accommodation costs in Canada.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Wouldn't post index do this?
Col Lemay: Yes, sir. A post index system is an excellent suggestion. From the work I have seen, it appears it could have all the components so members wouldn't say ``Well, I live here and you haven't put it in your equation and it makes a difference.''
I think it is potentially really difficult to put together the model that would give you a post index in Canada when you get into differences in income tax. Again, when it comes to government services, in some provinces you pay more income tax but you may get more services.
Mr. Jack Frazer: But we have computers.
Col Lemay: Agreed, sir.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Thank you, Madam Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Bertrand, please.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle, Lib.): Colonel Lemay, if I understood you correctly, when a Canadian Forces member moves, he goes to meet a relocation officer, who tells him everything he or she is entitled to by way of compensation or allowances. Is that correct?
Col Lemay: Yes.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Are there any brochures that provide this information or is it provided only orally? I would like to study the information that is provided at that time. I don't know whether it is available.
Col Lemay: Yes, I will give you a copy.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Can you send it to me?
Col Lemay: Yes, we have already sent it.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: You have already sent it. Then I would like to see if this is possible.
My last question, Colonel Lemay, concerns the Accommodation Assistance Allowance. I would like to come back to what Mr. Frazer mentioned.
Why has Revenue Canada ruled that this allowance is taxable? I assume that someone has already appealed this decision. What was the reason advanced by Revenue Canada?
Col Lemay: That goes back a few years. Personally, I haven't read the decision. I suppose it is related to the fact that it is a payment that is part of an employment-related payment but that is not an employment-related expense. Generally, in Canada, an allowance is not taxable when it is related to an employment expense for which you can show a receipt proving that you incurred the expense. So, as I understand it, this would be considered as an ordinary allowance that is part of an employment allowance.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: But you say in your statement that, after tax, less than 40 percent of the difference...
Col Lemay: That is correct.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Why is it only 40 percent? Why? We're defeating the purpose.
Col Lemay: I agree with you.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: If people need 100 percent, let's give them 100 percent. Logic seems to require it.
Col Lemay: I agree with you. When the allowance was approved, it was established that 12.5 percent was the level at which the allowance could be granted. In addition, however, it was established at that time that only 75 or 80 percent of the difference would be taken into consideration. And here there are certain terms and conditions that take into account family size and, on top of that, it's taxed. If you tax 75 percent of the difference, what's left is less than 40 percent.
I agree with you. In our opinion, this is one of the benefits that should be improved. Today, a constraint is being placed on us: the cost has to be neutral.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: I have one final comment, then a brief question.
.1650
You say this amount is paid monthly and that it is based on rank, if I understood you correctly. Why does the term "rank" come into it?
Col Lemay: Two changes are currently being made. Correct me, Jean-Pierre, if I don't answer correctly. If the designated location is above 12.5 percent, other minor changes apply. Lastly, to determine rank, the value is reduced slightly and another formula is then applied that increases it.
It is recognized in the industry that, if you receive a salary of a certain level, you normally rent accommodation in places of a certain level and that are more expensive. So there is a certain adjustment made to the final amount. We rely on premises of this kind which are not all that important.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: So, the higher a person's rank, the more money he receives.
Col Lemay: At present, that is true, but, as you will see, in these kinds of situations in a number of areas, we increasingly seem to want to abolish adjustments calculated in this way. This isn't an aspect of the allowance that preoccupies us.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much for this instalment, Colonel Lemay. I think you're staying and your cohorts are leaving. You're going to be joined by Mr. Nelson and Ms Jolicoeur. Would you like to take a five-minute break?
I think we'll take a very short break. Thank you.
.1652
.1657
The Chair: I welcome back Colonel Lemay, Mr. Nelson and Ms Jolicoeur. Who would like to open?
Mr. Michael Nelson (Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Forces Housing Agency, Department of National Defence): I think the way that was suggested, Madam Chair, was that I would start off first. What I've prepared relates to some questions that I had not answered very adequately and others that were taken under advisement.
The Chair: Great.
Mr. Nelson: There are three short ones and a slightly longer one, if that's all right.
The Chair: Why don't you go for it, Mr. Nelson, and we'll see if there are any questions arising.
I remind my colleagues on the committee that we are under a bit of a time constraint. We have another group to hear at 5:20, so let's try to do that. Thank you.
Mr. Nelson: Okay, I'll start, then.
There was a question about the use of demountable housing, ATCO trailer-type, that sort of thing. We've done a bit of research. It turns out we did have some; in fact we just sold it at Cold Lake. The idea was, wouldn't it be a good idea to use this in some places for housing, perhaps to avoid the cost of infrastructure?
The reason we got rid of it in Cold Lake is because it just was not suitable for the extremes of climate up there. It was built in 1964. It was pretty bad stuff. What it amounted to was that nobody really wanted to live in it. So we've sold it.
But the point is still well taken. In 1964 there were literally no standards for this stuff, and now I'm told standards for demountable housing are actually in the building code. Cold Lake has extremes of temperature that perhaps we don't meet everywhere.
My answer to that is it would probably be part of our tool kit, if you will. If we had to stick up some housing in a hurry, then that might be a way to do it, bearing in mind that if you're going to have something that's going to have people in it, it's going to need plumbing and it's going to need roads to it. So a lot of those infrastructure costs are probably going to be incurred in any event.
The second one was a question you had asked, Madam Chair, about Windsor Park and the rent on the married quarters. The rent number we gave you was in the three hundreds. The information we had with us was the average rent for all of our apartments in the Halifax area.
We went back and took a look into those figures, and it turns out that some of the housing in Dartmouth, the lakefront apartments, dragged that figure down. So I want to give you the proper figure, which is $435 a month for a two-bedroom apartment and $485 a month for a three-bedroom apartment in Windsor Park in those particular buildings. On top of that, they pay utilities.
The Chair: Including heat?
Mr. Nelson: Yes. It's a fixed charge of about $97 a month for the two-bedroom, and $104 a month on top of the rent for.... That still doesn't get into the $1,000 a month you compared it to, but I didn't want to mislead you as to the level of the rent.
The Chair: Thank you.
.1700
Mr. Nelson: Another question was about the percentage of military families leasing in the private sector as opposed to living in our married quarters. Statistics on this aren't kept in the department, but last year the Canadian Forces housing agency did some housing requirement studies at three locations, Edmonton, Comox and Esquimalt.
We were trying to do a comparison on the demographics of the people posted there, how much money they made, and what the local real estate market looked like. If they were living off base, one of the questions in the survey asked if they were renting or were owners. It turned out that at Edmonton and Comox about 90% of the families living off base owned their own homes.
Another interesting statistic that came out of the report was that of the people who indicated that generally speaking they would rather live off base than on base, 98% said they would rather own their homes. There is a high propensity for home ownership.
To demonstrate, perhaps, that in Victoria things are a little bit different, as you were hearing earlier today, about 63% of those who live off base in Victoria own their homes. We don't have the statistics since housing has gone up in price on how many have started to buy their homes, but certainly the lower level shows the lack of affordability in Victoria.
I will also say that in Comox the high percentage of people who own off base perhaps shows that Comox is a place that has traditionally been a place people would rather retire to. Perhaps the home ownership is higher there.
I can't generalize across the forces, but it seems that in these three locations the people who live off the base would rather own.
The Chair: Is that it for you, Mr. Nelson, or do you have more?
Mr. Nelson: I have a longer reply. I understand the time pressure.... This one is longer and it's about the constraints on the performance of the agency. You were asking about that. In deference to -
The Chair: Go ahead. You're doing very well, a lot better than the members.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Nelson: Okay. I'll skip through this one then. Mr. Hart asked if the agency has a mission statement, so I thought I would read it to you to make sure I got exactly the words right:
- The CFHA mission is to ensure access to suitable affordable housing for military families in
support of the defence mission.
That's the list. It's what I would call a full range of real property functions: what you would expect an agency called the Canadian Forces Housing Agency to be doing on behalf of the members.
Now, I suggest that there are two broad types of constraints. One is what I would call ``administrative constraints'' and the second is constraints to obtaining capital.
The administrative constraints fall into contracting and procurement, that sort of constraint, in that our budget for contracted maintenance and improvements, just the fixing of the roofs and the trouble calls, is about $40 million annually for the 22,000 homes. My current contracting authority for direct with the trade is $5,000 per transaction. That is not sufficient to do a number of roofs at the same time or a number of basements at the same time. It's not sufficient to do an awful lot in the housing game, so we're required to use the Department of Public Works and government services or Defence Construction Canada.
In going through those other agencies, we have to negotiate our own time lines with them. They are service agencies and they do provide services to us, but they also charge a fee. In going through these agencies, we incur costs in terms of the energy consumed to get them to follow our own time lines and requirements and in the extra fees we incur in order to ask them to actually deliver on the work.
.1705
We also currently have no authority to lease or construct. Similar restrictions exist in the procurement of goods. By way of an example, which is perhaps more useful than just a list of things we're constrained by, one of the things we're doing in setting up our agency is putting together a cross-country electronic management information system. In order to procure that, we had to go through the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
There were several delays of months in going through that procurement process. It was not because of anything except that, as usual, there are many priorities in the system.
Our priority, to put it quite bluntly, is to have the phones answered at eight in the morning on April 1 this year, which is when the people start calling. That is my immutable priority right now. That priority is not necessarily shared by those in other departments, and I can understand that.
The fact that there were delays has caused us to compress the amount of time we have to implement the management information system, which has caused us to incur many tens of thousands of dollars in extra costs to bring extra contractors in.
We had to bring extra staff in to work in this compressed environment. When we turn to staffing, we're required to go through many other agencies to bring staff in, consider people on priority lists, and other things of this nature. Just to get the real estate, the office space, to bring in these extra people, we had to go through eight other offices, even though we're the people who are paying for the property. In order to get the telephones hooked up, we had to go through another agency.
I don't want to sit here and sound like I'm whining, Madam Chair. I've been in the public service for many years, and I understand the requirement for these kinds of controls in a large system.
Here's what I would suggest. The Department of National Defence is perhaps a precision instrument for managing a $10-billion budget; it's a somewhat blunter instrument for managing a small housing agency. That's the only point I would make.
Mr. John Richardson: I'd like to follow up on something I mentioned the last time you were here. You have a vast reservoir of capital sitting there as land and existing buildings. I like the concept that since it is owned by the Government of Canada and in trust with the Department of National Defence - I don't know how you would word this - there could certainly be some method of allowing the Department of National Defence to set up its own semi-autonomous, or autonomous, operation to run the housing side of the operation.
I'm not so sure that it would be easily done, but certainly it would only be done if it was tried. That would then afford you the opportunity to go on the open market, borrow against existing assets, and get the mortgage money to, one, upgrade existing facilities to the required standard of today's life, and two, build new assets or new housing accommodation as part of the restructuring of Canadian Forces.
We've gone to the big-base concept. That concept will require a lot of maintenance. At the same time, you can gain somewhat on that maintenance by having it in a larger-scale operation.
I would like to see, from the bottom up, before we leave this point, something that would indicate to us as a committee the map showing the obstacles to that type of an institution. Certainly it would help us as a committee then to think about it. What are the obstacles? If those are the obstacles, then we as a group would have to look at trying to remove those obstacles so that this is possible.
.1710
Certainly I hear over and over that a lot of the things that are required are because you're part of a big, fixed operation that doesn't have the flexibility to allow you to react to immediate needs. It's big. It can handle ten-year plans, but some of these things are thrown on you over two-year and three-year periods, and you need that flexibility.
Could you or anybody - I know you've been thinking about it in defence headquarters - come up and show us as a committee the problem and its solution so that this committee can look at it with care and call in other experts to advise us?
Mr. Nelson: It would certainly be my pleasure to do that, sir. If I could take under advisement exactly how we're going to go about doing that say in broad terms.... I think you've hit the nail on the head by identifying a structural problem within a large federal department that has all of those necessary controls and impediments.
Some type of structural option within that large tool kit the government has in creating organizations would probably be more appropriate. The ownership of the land, the ability to indebt the crown, I understand, is one of those impediments that one would have to come up with in terms of coming up with a structure that would work that way. I would certainly like to undertake to try to get that for you.
Mr. Bob Wood: Mr. Nelson, is there a formula in place at all that you know of for releasing housing units back onto the market once they become vacant? Are there so many a year so that there isn't a complete glut on the local housing market? Is there a formula that you guys use?
Mr. Nelson: There's no formula that we use because each individual site is going to be different. For instance, I know that in both Goose Bay and Gander, there are concerns about the release of excess housing onto the market. In both of those locations, we've started talking with the local communities, the community councils, and the mayors to make sure they understand that we're not about to just dump and ruin the local real estate market, because it wouldn't make any sense for any of us.
Mr. Bob Wood: They have a formula that I'm familiar with in North Bay in which they only release so many row housing units a year into the market. I think you have an arrangement with Turret Construction. I just wondered.
Mr. Nelson: I do know what you're talking about in that case. There are places in Canada where we have bulk-leased housing. We have that in North Bay and Winnipeg. We had some in Toronto. We have a huge whack of it in Halifax. The arrangements we have often allow us - this is right in the contract - if we're not using the housing, to release a certain number per year. Often that number is 40.
For example, take one of our contracts in Halifax. We have literally hundreds and hundreds of vacancies for which I'm required to pay the rent from other bases. There's that rent even though there's no one in them. We're allowed to release 40 per year back to the proprietor so that he or she can then return them to the private sector or do whatever they want with them. It's essentially an escape valve for us to return some of them back to the proprietor.
Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.
The Chair: Ms Jolicoeur, did you have anything that you wanted to add?
Ms Renée Jolicoeur (Director, Pay Services, Department of National Defence): I'm supposed to answer three questions, if you allow me.
The Chair: Would you like to answer them? That would be good. I know what they are, but you go ahead and answer them.
Ms Jolicoeur: One of the questions was related to the status of pensions given to CF members. I think it was Mr. Wood who asked that question.
I must say that an annual statement of the status of the CF pension fund is prepared every year and provided to Parliament. We provided the researchers with copies of it. If you need additional copies, we can provide it to the members. I have one with me.
This document is available to all the Canadian Armed Forces members on request. In addition, members' pension contributions are recorded on their monthly pay statements. They get a one-year, up-to-date amount on their pay statements.
.1715
If a member wants to know how much he would get as a pension should he decide to retire either now or in a few years, he could contact his unit or the director of pay services, and he will be provided with either a monthly or annual estimate. We have put the calculation on an EDP package, and that package has been distributed to all the units and districts across Canada.
On the question of whether or not it would be a good idea to consider a quarterly status report, I will only say that it's a good idea but it would be costly. We have estimated that the cost of providing an yearly status report to the members is approximately $1.2 million on an annual basis. Obviously, it always depends on the format, the printing and all that, but it means we would have to review the calculations for each member every year or every quarter, depending on where they are in terms of number of years. That could be quite resource-intensive as an exercise.
That's the response to the first question. I will go on to the second question, which is related to the revised reserve pay system. I think it was
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand, who asked about the progress on implementation of the reserve pay system. I am going to answer in French.
Implementation of the new revised reserve pay system is moving ahead. In English, we use the acronym RPSR. The hardware and the telecommunications system have been installed across the country. In fact, the system is now in operation in the Atlantic region, where we have the largest number of reservists. Reservists in the Atlantic region are currently being paid through the system and have been since late January.
In the Ontario region, we haven't completed implementation, but it is very far advanced. We expect to be able to pay reservists through the new system in mid-April. This will be the first pay we can make. After that, we'll move on to the Quebec region, where we think we can introduce the system in the spring. Lastly, there will remain the Western region, where we think we can introduce it in the second half of the spring or in September at the latest. That's our implementation schedule for the new system.
This system will make it possible to pay reservists correctly and on time. We know that there used to be a problem. This represents an interim solution that will be valid until we can come up with a more sustainable solution.
I now want to talk about this more sustainable solution in my answer to the question by Mr. Hart,
[English]
who was asking why there is not only one pay delivery system for both the regular forces and the reserves.
We are now in the process of re-engineering the regular force pay system, and one of the objectives of the re-engineering project is to have the regular forces and the reservists paid by the same system. This is what we call the CCPS Mark III, and the project should be completed before the end of 1998.
As for why we were paying the regular forces and the reservists with two different systems, it's mostly because the business process differs considerably. While the regular forces' pay system and policies are managed centrally, the administration of the pay system with the reservists is decentralized. It's done at the unit and district level. At the same time, the reservists are governed by policies that tend to be decentralized as well. The sources are coming from different sources, and this complicates the management of a pay system from a single, centralized source.
That completes my response to the questions.
The Chair: Does anyone have a supplementary question?
Mr. Bob Wood: Can I just ask a quick question? I think I have the answer to this, but I just want to hear it.
We've been trying to create a bilingual force for a number of years. It's a goal, but it was absent from the list of allowances that we got. I assume that being bilingual is not rewarded with increased wages. Is that a correct assessment?
Ms Jolicoeur: I will ask Colonel Lemay to answer that. It's a policy question.
Col Lemay: That's a correct assessment.
.1720
Mr. Bob Wood: Is this linguistic skill rewarded in any other way?
Col Lemay: Yes. It is taken into consideration in the merit evaluation that is done every year.
Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.
The Chair: Mr. Hart.
Mr. Jim Hart: Thank you, Madam Chair.
I also was quite surprised at the percentage of people who would rather own their own home. That's actually good news, as far as I'm concerned. That's really great.
You were talking about the pension fund. If members of the Canadian Armed Forces would prefer to live in their own homes in the private sector, is there a system or could there be a system whereby they could borrow against their pension fund at a low interest rate in order to make a down payment on a home? That's just an idea.
Col Lemay: Mr. Hart, I think some countries, such as Britain, had or still have a plan similar to the one you're referring to, and I'd be pleased to make note of the question and provide you with the details.
I think the question people might ask is if the money is for retirement and you take it out early to buy a house, are we defeating the purpose of the pension plan? I think that is the kind of view that would come into the equation and the discussion. But I think they had some rules to prevent this from happening.
Mr. Hart: It would be interesting to see any other models that are available out there - not that I'm trying to put you out of business.
The Chair: Colonel Lemay, do you have anything to add?
Col Lemay: I was hoping to have the chance to quickly answer a few questions, Madam Chair, but if you're pressed for time....
The Chair: No, you go ahead.
Col Lemay: Thank you.
First, I just wanted to let you know that the information you asked for on the comparison between the forces in terms of pay and allowances is being worked on. If you allow me, I would say that although I share your interest with the other forces on the presentation on pay, I should say that I was a bit disappointed that there was no question on the settlement process. I just want to leave you with that remark, if you'll allow me.
One of the other questions I wanted to answer, Madam Chair, was the one you asked about how many recruits and officer cadets were making under $17,000. I have a report here dated February 1997 from our director of pay services that tells me that there were 1,158 officer cadets earning less than $17,000.
As for privates, although the report says two, that may be a reporting error. I think the answer should be none. The explanation for this is that when the government introduced the Public Sector Compensation Restraint Act in June 1994, which imposed the freeze on incentive pay, both the forces and the Treasury Board Secretariat realized that freeze on incentive pay would penalize the privates more than anyone else, and it was not intended to do that.
What happened is that at that time a joint agreement was reached with the Chief of the Defence Staff, and all privates and recruits at the time and anyone who joined after that were placed in the incentive pay category one at approximately $19,900. That is still in effect.
So unless there are one or two who are under a different arrangement, there are no recruits or privates who are paid $17,000 or less at this moment.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
.1725
Col Lemay: Another question, if I may, was a question raised by Mr. Hart about accumulated leave. You had asked for some information about the cost and the numbers or estimates of the liability before we started the program. It was in the order of $600 million. Our estimate after the first year of the program, taking into account the liability that went because of our force reduction program of 1996, was that on April 1, 1996, it was $445 million.
Our estimate right now for April 1, 1997 - and our information is not complete because we don't have statistics on the people who are going to be released or who have been released, but just going by the program that we've had this year - is that right now the liability is in the order of$325 million to $350 million.
As to the amount of accumulated leave by rank, the numbers I'm going to give you, sir, are an estimate as of March 31, 1996, which was before the program started. It wouldn't be as accurate today, because some have participated and some haven't. So on March 31, 1996 - and this is an estimate, because we didn't have an automated national system at the time - the average for generals, which you asked about, was 173 days; for chief warrant officers was 106; and for sergeants was 67. I could give you all the numbers, but what you would see is that the numbers are related to the number of years of service. Generally those of more senior rank have more than those of more junior rank.
Madam Chair, if you'll allow me a minute, I just wanted to say that when had the presentation on pay, maybe I was misleading you. When I suggested I could not answer the questions on the reserve pay delivery system, I didn't mean I couldn't answer the question on the reserve force pay policy.
You may be familiar with the report of the special commission on the reserve force and its recommendation about the implementation of a reserve force retirement allowance, and also regarding their pay - that it should be brought up to 85% of the regular force, and that there should be some statutory holiday pay involved. These initiatives, these programs have been progressing, and I expect they may be considered by Treasury Board in the next few months.
Mr. John Richardson: When you say 85%, that's while doing the work at their local reserve unit -
Col Lemay: Correct, sir.
Mr. John Richardson: - but when they're serving with the regular force, they go automatically to comparability.
Col Lemay: Yes. The 85%, sir, applies to - and I know we're getting a bit technical here - class A and B service. If they are on reserve class C service, which is the service that the reserve force are placed on if they serve with the regular force overseas on operations, they receive the same rates of pay and all the same benefits.
Mr. John Richardson: The same as on our peacekeeping missions?
Col Lemay: Correct, sir.
A voice: It all goes together.
Col Lemay: Yes. At this stage the policy is that when they are employed on peacekeeping missions they are placed on class C, and they get the exact same pay and benefits as the regular force.
Mr. John Richardson: In Canada wouldn't the people manning those coastal vessels in the -
Col Lemay: Class B, sir.
Mr. John Richardson: They're class B. Okay.
Mr. Bob Wood: Are there a large number of reservists, Colonel, who qualify for this status and the full wage?
Col Lemay: Who are on class C right now?
Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.
Col Lemay: I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. We'll have to find the answer.
Mr. Bob Wood: No, don't worry about it.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Col Lemay: Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chair: Now I believe we have our final group. While we're waiting we'll take one minute to stand and stretch.
.1729
.1731
The Chair: Now I believe we have, and I'm not sure if I'm in the right order, Brigadier-General Popowych - he'd be the one in the uniform, that was fairly easy - Mr. Jamieson, Ms Gunning, and Ms Barrette-Mozes. Welcome to the committee.
I've been briefed by my colleagues about two things - that you are back here at the request of the vice-chair, and also that my colleague Mr. O'Reilly was in the midst of questioning you when the bells rang for the vote. Would that be right?
Mr. O'Reilly, would you therefore like to -
Mr. John O'Reilly: Continue? Thank you.
The Chair: How much time did Mr. O'Reilly have left?
An hon. member: He had just started.
Mr. John O'Reilly: I actually only have two questions, and I'll carry those.
Thank you very much for coming back and appearing before us again.
According to my notes, and I don't have the minutes, so you can correct me if I'm wrong, we had talked about the cost of child care and the Treasury Board policy towards it. I think my question was, who was pleading the case on behalf of the military, and what the rationale was for the policy that you had recommended.
My other concern was, I believe some people who appeared before the military family support program group were told not to appear, and that there was some.... I notice the people who said that aren't here, so maybe they were told not to appear. I don't know.
If that's the case, and we're conducting hearings and you're part of the hearings, then should the base commander not be included in the hearings we are conducting, for fear of reprisal from the people who were here, who aren't here now?
Those were my concerns, and I believe we were at that point in the question when we were interrupted. Mr. Jamieson, I believe you were in the process of answering that.
Mr. J.F.J. Jamieson (Director, Military Family Support, Department of National Defence): Thank you.
Just by way of starting, I would like to point out we have two new people here with us today who were not here when we were with you last Thursday. Those people - one of them is literally out of the country and the other is on the prairies, doing a staff assistance visit to Suffield.
Without belabouring it, Madam Chair, with me are Ms Linda Gunning, who is the director of our military family resource centre here in Ottawa. Among other things, she's also the spouse of a retired military member, and has some expertise in both child care and spousal employment issues, which were two of the foci we were looking at.
.1735
Suzan Barrette-Mozes is also a staff member at our family resource centre at this present time. She is the spouse of a current serving member, and has some research expertise in both child care and spousal employment issues.
And without belabouring things, Suzan Truscott - I think she has left - was in with us, and she has done considerable research on both issues that we're discussing.
Now I'll try to answer your questions. Can I deal with the second one first? I think it's a little easier. I've committed myself to one of your colleagues who's not here today, and said I would personally write to each family resource centre to not only encourage as many spouses as possible to come to meet with you when you make the tours, but to ensure that things are done in an atmosphere free of any possible concern about any type of recrimination or even the perception of such. I have written that letter, and I will ensure -
The Chair: I wasn't here, Mr. O'Reilly, so I'm wondering if there might have been the concern that this was a perception, as opposed to an absolute.
Mr. Jamieson: Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. O'Reilly, but I believe your colleague had concerns because some spouses from the Valcartier area apparently spoke to him and said they wouldn't talk.
The Chair: Sorry, Mr. Jamieson. It's because it's late in the day. I would thank you for that offer, and I hope you would do so. I'll back off and let you finish what you were saying.
Mr. Jamieson: If I've adequately addressed that specific concern, certainly our perception is that rather than having them come to this committee meeting here, you would be going out to meet with several of the base commanders, spouses and the whole range of people. From a family support perspective, I think that was our intention. When we asked spouses what the two principle issues of concern were to them, in many contexts they repeatedly told us those concerns were employment and child care. That's why we brought those two issues to you.
On child care policy funding, Mr. O'Reilly, what I tried to bring out in my opening address last Thursday was the fact that we do not expect members of the forces or their families, vis-à-vis child care issues, to be treated any differently than anyone else. However, we do suffer two unique, major concerns at this point.
First, Treasury Board policy does not allow us to use federal funds - which are what are in our control to a limited extent - to directly subsidize any form of child care. That has always been our understanding. That being the case, we believe the committee should be aware that our organization places what we consider to be a number of unique challenges on our families. Insofar as we the public place those challenges on families, perhaps there should be an allowance that some public funds could be used to subsidize child care issues under some circumstances.
For example, a single parent is posted from Ottawa to Edmonton with two children. She or he - but for the sake of argument, let's say she - has a good child care situation here in Ottawa, probably thanks to the work of the family support centre. That family now goes to a new location, where the parent cannot register her child on a waiting list until the family is in the province. The member must report for duty when she's told to do so. Or in the middle of the night, we may call her out to go on base defence force at midnight. She has no choice; she must go. We the public have put her in that position. What does she do with her children? They need immediate assistance.
.1740
So in those types of contexts, we're suggesting that this is one of the reasons this issue is so important to our spouses. They are very concerned and frustrated about child care issues and the unique encumbrances that we put on them in our organization.
I don't know if I'm adequately addressing your basic question, but....
Mr. John O'Reilly: I'm sorry, Madam Chair. I didn't elaborate on the intervention by Mr. de Savoye, who was indicating the problems with appearing. I apologize for that.
But I was concerned that there is no policy on child care in those situations you have addressed. It's great in Ottawa, but it isn't in other places. The basis of the question was what could be done about it.
Mr. Jamieson: We have put forth a framework for policy, but it was a non-starter, sir. There is no allowance for federal public funding to be used, so we were told basically it's a non-starter.
What we have done - it's not policy but vis-à-vis programming - is in every family resource centre there are five areas of responsibility, and one of those is child care. So through professional coordinators who the department does fund, we institute a range of child care options, but they are totally based on user fees or grants, allowances, fund-raising that goes on at the centre. We do have a lot of good things in place, but as I said, they're dependent on self-generated funding.
For example, at many places we run a full-fledged institutional day care, with some subsidized positions. Those subsidized positions, of course, are subsidized by provincial funding. To get that provincial funding, we must open up that child care centre to the full community in that area. One of the catch-22s we have is that at some places most of the kids in our institutional child care are civilian kids because they come to the top of the waiting list. By the time the new posted-in person that I spoke about earlier gets there, gets on a waiting list and grows frustrated, she has found some alternative and doesn't use the place.
The Chair: I wonder if I could jump in at this point. Is it a Treasury Board ruling that you can't use federal funds for child care?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, ma'am.
The Chair: Okay.
Mr. Jamieson: That's what we've always been told.
The Chair: By whom?
Mr. Jamieson: By officials in Treasury Board and by our own officials.
The Chair: Okay, by your own officials. Where does the buck stop? Who is the last person or the person the highest up on the totem pole who says you can't use federal funds for child care?
Am I going after Doug Young and Marcel Massé here, or am I going after Larry Murray? Who is the person?
Mr. Jamieson: What we came with is to report the situation and to request that the committee investigate and perhaps recommend that under -
The Chair: Trust me, at least part of the committee will be recommending this, anyway. But what I want to know is, is it written down? We hear some things, and this is written down and this isn't written down. Is it written down somewhere in a Treasury Board guideline that you can't use federal funds for child care in the military?
Mr. Jamieson: I am told it is. To be honest, I have not seen it, but I have personally talked to several Treasury Board officials who have assured me that this is not a go, that this is not possible. You are not allowed to use federal government funds to directly subsidize child care.
I'm not talking about start-up costs, or workplace start-up costs, or refurbishing. Yes, you can use -
The Chair: I know what you're talking about.
Mr. Jamieson: I'm talking about subsidization.
The Chair: Yes, okay. I wonder if perhaps what we might do is discuss this matter with Mr. Harder, the deputy minister at Treasury Board.
If there was something written that you were able to find, I'd be interested in seeing that.
.1745
Brigadier-General I. Popowych (Director General, Personnel Services, Department of National Defence): Madam Chair, if I may add a perspective -
The Chair: Please.
BGen Popowych: - this is not a policy that earmarks the Department of National Defence. It would be fair to say that your question is best answered by saying that federal government policy precludes the use of taxpayers' money to underwrite child care programs. We, the military -
The Chair: With the greatest of respect, General, I do understand that, and I understand that it's based on the constitutional imperative that child care comes under the control of the provincial government and all of that. But part of the mandate of this committee is to look at the services that we as a government provide to the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.
Obviously, one of the things that has changed radically about the armed forces in recent years is the number of women, in particular, the number of women on active duty. The other thing that has changed radically is the number of spouses who are working, as Colonel Lemay mentioned, to provide a normal standard of living, which is the norm out of the military as well. There are also many changes to the, shall we say, traditional roles in the nuclear family or in the family generally, and the old institutions no longer hold.
This is clearly one of the things that this committee is here to look at, at least from the point of view of this committee's chair, and the other members will be dragged kicking and screaming to the same position.
Oh, no response from them -
A voice: We agree with you.
Mr. Jamieson: May I -
The Chair: I know you do.
Mr. Jamieson: May I add two quick comments, Madam Chair?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Jamieson: According to our surveys, approximately 70% of spouses tell us they are working or want to be working. If we believe - and we don't have to - the statistics of the Vanier Institute of the Family, 62% of spouses are now working. Without that, most of those families would fall below what they consider a reasonable standard of living.
The Chair: Sure. Those statistics would pretty much reflect.... They might be just a titch lower because of posting exigencies that we talked about earlier, but they're not any higher than those of people not in the military.
Mr. Jamieson: If we take the example of someone who lives in your riding who is in the navy and gets posted from there to Esquimalt, their rent is going to jump dramatically.
The Chair: Absolutely.
Mr. Jamieson: And if the spouse loses her employment we may say that she chose to marry a sailor. But they did not choose to be posted to Victoria. They must go.
The Chair: This is where people are suffering because of their commitment to the armed forces.
Mr. Jamieson: This has impacts on both the employment issue and the child care issue, which of course are interrelated.
I'm sorry. I'll stop talking so much.
The Chair: That's okay. That's what you're here for. I still didn't find out who tells you what the restrictions are for you in delivering the family support programs.
Mr. Jamieson: There really are no restrictions as long as we can find a way to do it.
The Chair: But someone has told you that you can't use federal money for child care.
Mr. Jamieson: Yes, ma'am.
The Chair: I'm still trying to find out where that comes from to DND.
Mr. Jamieson: This happened specifically in 1994, I believe, when we made a major initiative. It was a position called ``chief of personnel services'' at the time. That position doesn't even exist any more, but it wasn't done with any rancour or -
The Chair: No, no. I'm not going out to hit him. I just want to know where the lines go. That's all.
Mr. Jamieson: As I said, I have personally spoken to the Treasury Board, so this is not a red herring.
The Chair: Monsieur Bertrand.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Merci, madame la présidente.
Mr. Jamieson, last Thursday one of the ladies who was a witness mentioned that she had organized a few focus groups on low morale in the Canadian Armed Forces. Do you think we could get copies of those reports? I'm sure the researchers would be interested in reading them. Do you have them?
Mr. Jamieson: Yes.
Mr. Robert Bertrand: The same lady who was talking about the focus groups also brought up the subject of what Monsieur Pierre de Savoye mentioned about retaliation, about people being afraid to come because they were afraid of retaliation. I hope that will not be the case when we go out to visit the different bases.
.1750
Mr. Jamieson: As I mentioned, Mr. Bertrand, I'm doing everything possible to urge our family resource centres to encourage spouses to speak to you and to do it in an environment where they feel totally unthreatened in any way. I'm positive you will find that.
As I said at the time, my experience is that spouses are not reluctant to tell me what's bothering them, nor are they reluctant to tell our very senior officers who have gone around.
This is a mixed thing. I'm not saying that no one has ever been intimidated, that would be foolish, but I think it would be very wrong to take the position that this is the norm, that Corporal X or Sergeant X gets hauled in and is asked, ``What's your wife telling the committee? What's your wife telling the press?'' This may happen, and I'm sure it has happened, but it is not the norm.
The Chair: Perhaps Ms Gunning or Ms Barrette-Mozes would like to make a comment.
Ms Linda Gunning (Executive Director, National Capital Region, Military Family Resource Centre): I think our spouses are very willing to speak out, but they usually expect to have a safe environment to do it in. So I guess it will be pretty much up to the standing committee to test the waters to see if people are not coming forward because they are intimidated by other people in your environment.
An hour before I came here I spoke with a peacekeeping spouse who very clearly was in a panic mode. Her husband is coming home tonight at 11:30, and she's going to go through seven hours of hell until he gets here. One of the things she said to me very clearly was ``I didn't want to call anybody else, because I didn't want the military to think that my husband was married to this crazy woman who is going nuts right now.'' So it's a concern. It's real.
So far the committee seems to be very sensitive to issues, and I'm sure you'll take that into account. But it is something that has to be taken into account.
The Chair: Mr. Bertrand.
Mr. Bertrand: I have one last question. I presume that you've all read the five pieces that appeared last week in The Ottawa Citizen. I'm just interested in the third instalment, which states, ``Wife prays husband didn't die in vain''. Apparently her husband was killed in action. The article states that no one from the unit approached her to offer help or to guide her through the maze of military paperwork that follows the death of a peacekeeper. Is there a significant difference from one base to another in the quality and quantity of service and information provided by the family resource centre?
Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps I'm the best person to answer that. There are variances, there is no doubt, and we're moving towards minimum standard services at every base. This program has been up and running only since 1991. We've gone through some growing pains. We are trying to, and we're going to, standardize minimum core services.
Now, although the unit has a responsibility to the lady in question, we do also, and if in fact she did not get the support she needed to get through the bureaucracy, that's partly our fault. I would like to think that, again, that would be the exception, not the norm.
I do happen to know two of the three women who were mentioned in that article, and no one can take away their pain. But there is a network in place for them. There is something called a tragedy assistance program for survivors. It's a strictly military program, but it is worldwide. It started in the States. We now have in Canada chapters of TAPS, the tragedy assistance program for spouses. It's for months and even years after. There's lots of attention at the time of the death or serious injury, but then it falls off, and we're probably as guilty as anyone of not sustaining that contact and making sure. We're now working in hand with the TAPS organization for those very types of cases.
.1755
So to answer your question more directly, yes, there are variances. Some units are better than others. We are trying to standardize our part in that.
The Chair: Mr. Wood.
Mr. Bob Wood: Yes, I was just listening.
Continuing along the line of questioning that the chair has, on the impact on the families, I'll take this another step higher, Ms Gunning, if I can ask a question to you.
I wonder if there have been any long-term studies done on how these moves really affect children of maybe five years of age and up, and I'd like to hear your views on it. Has there been anything like that done? Not day care, but children who move all over the country and....
Ms Gunning: What we're discovering with teens now is that the youth problem is a lot bigger than we ever did.... As a matter of fact, when the program developed, we actually did not put anything specific in for youth programming. We dealt with children, and we certainly focused a great deal on the younger children, but the older group sort of slipped through the cracks, I guess. We are certainly discovering, over the last couple of years, that they require a lot of attention. Of course working with youth is pretty labour-intensive.
Have we done studies in that area yet? No, there aren't that many studies done there. We do know - and you probably have some statistics on that - that for younger children, moving is right there; that's traumatic.
Most family resource centres have posting-in and posting-out programs for their younger children so that they prepare them for the next move. They prepare memory boxes so that they can remember, take pictures, remember their friends, and take that to the new location, and then hopefully at the other end there's another program there to help them get integrated into their new space.
Mr. Bob Wood: You say ``hopefully''. Are there always programs at the other end that will pick it up?
Ms Gunning: That's reflecting a little bit of what Mr. Jamieson is saying. What we are trying to do now is develop programming that is consistent across the country so that every family can be assured that will happen for them. So we are presently in the process of saying yes, there are certain things that are a must in each location and other things that can be optional, depending on the location and other resources available in that location. But that, we certainly feel, is one.
We don't have base schools any more, so sensitizing teachers to military children.... We have a worker here in Ottawa who is working with one of our schools where half the population belongs to military families. She did a little survey at the beginning saying, ``Do you think the military children have any different needs or suffer any different stresses from the other children in this school?'' For the most part, the teachers said no, they didn't feel there was any difference or change. So we realized immediately that there was some instruction to be given there to the teachers, and then....
Mr. Bob Wood: As a quick question, you talked about the peacekeeping lady, and then the problem this evening, or whatever. How do the young children react to that? Their dad is away for six or seven months, or a year, and their mother has to feed and clothe them, become the main disciplinarian, the whole works. It's a big problem, I would think.
Ms Gunning: Absolutely. There's a lot of acting-out behaviour, and we have a whole information package that we give to spouses with children going through this sort of period of trauma, information that encourages them to go and see the teacher, to explain to the child's teacher or nursery-school teacher or care provider or the people in that child's surroundings, and to explain what's happening and that this acting-out behaviour may be due to the fact the father or mother is away right now and the child is going through a difficult time. People have to be understanding. Give them a chance to talk about what they're feeling.
.1800
At our little nursery school at the Uplands site, the teachers specifically deal with issues of loss and separation. They give the younger children a chance to talk about those things, to do art work on those things, to manipulate toys and other items, so that they can express themselves in one way or another and get out of their system some of this anger, usually, over the missing parent.
The Chair: Mr. Hart, you had a brief question.
Mr. Jim Hart: Yes, just two quick points.
Mr. Jamieson, you mentioned that you made a series of recommendations in 1994. Were those recommendations to Treasury Board?
Mr. Jamieson: They were to our own department, sir, and they pressed for a limited but universal child care initiative across the country. The initiative was fairly major, so it was going to cost about $4 million.
Mr. Jim Hart: Can we get a copy of that particular initiative?
Mr. Jamieson: I think we already did give it to the support team.
Mr. Jim Hart: Okay, that's good.
I just wanted to say to Ms Gunning and Ms Barrette-Mozes that I congratulate you for the work you do. I think the work you do at the resource centres for the military people is probably far more important than anything this committee will come up with. Thank you for your support and dedication to the military families out there.
The Chair: I have a couple of comments. We're out of time, but I wrote down four things. I wrote down ``safe environment'', because what that means to a parliamentary committee and what it may mean to the women you're representing is something you may give us - or might give me - advice on, although not tonight.
One of the other things I wanted to tell you has to do with our trip to Halifax. I have spoken to the admiral there about having the hearings at Stadacona rather than in a hotel. I thought that might be more.... Maybe it's not for women. Maybe it needs to be somewhere else. I don't know. If you wanted to let us know about that in the next little while, I wouldn't mind.
I wrote down things like violence against women, child abuse, elder abuse, drug abuse and alcohol abuse. And then, sort of quoting what you said about that wife who didn't want the military to know this peacekeeper's wife was a crazy woman, I wrote down that it seems to me this is in a sense a microcosm of the world at large, and not a very small microcosm. But these are some of the things I'd like to know about. Are we dealing with these problems at all adequately?
I might just tell you that I grew up in a house where the command social worker lived, so I heard a lot of these things from her. She's the only woman I know of who Fred Mifflin was actually afraid of.
Mr. Jamieson: I was afraid of your mother too.
Voices: Oh, oh!
The Chair: Were you?
Mr. Jamieson: I worked with her for a while.
The Chair: See, Mr. Hart, it runs in the family.
Mr. Jamieson: Even when I was her boss for a while, I was still afraid of her.
The Chair: She stopped the 1925 strike in Glace Bay when she was seven years old, Mr. Jamieson, so that'll give you some idea.
Anyway, I am concerned. Given that we are out of time, though, I'm wondering if there is a possibility that any or all of you can share your thoughts with this committee, just on paper. I know you're pressed for time.
Ms Gunning: Certainly. I'd be pleased to.
The Chair: Would you? It would be helpful to all of us if we could have some of your thoughts on just those general areas of major social problems.
Mr. Jamieson: May I be allowed to make two quick remarks? I take it we're packing it in, is that right?
The Chair: We have to.
Mr. Jamieson: One of our five components is what we call crisis intervention and support. That was put in place primarily, although not exclusively, because of issues like family violence or isolation of spouses on remote bases away from extended family. This is a safe haven for them. Many of our family resource centres have, among other things, safe houses or at least safe families on base if it's not realistic to use the community in the short term.
.1805
Secondly and lastly, from my point of view, on the issue of spousal employment, which we haven't addressed much, I did hint in my written remarks to you that this is a big concern.
We would like the committee to at least consider the possibility that spouses are perhaps entitled to some assistance above and beyond what we can give them. There is a parallel. We have a system in the forces of a grant to be used only for assistance in re-employment. People like me, who left the armed forces, were entitled to it. Often we don't use part of it, but it can be used for professional job search assistance or specific upgrading in a new area to get qualifications up to what a province demands.
I hope the committee will at least consider that.
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Jamieson: We move about 3,000 spouses a year. The grants that are currently available to members for second-career employment are up to $2,000 each. That works out to $6 million, but I think only a fraction of that, perhaps one-third, is used.
I don't know what else we can do to help spouses other than the support networks that we develop. And the requirement for that second job is a big factor in many of our families.
The Chair: I thank you, Mr. Jamieson, for those comments.
I thank you all for your contributions, both today's and last week's.
As you know, this committee is going to survive whatever political exigencies may come up in the next couple of months, and I suspect that perhaps after the committee has visited various places around the country we may be interested in inviting you back as well, if that would be agreeable.
At any rate, thank you very much for your contribution today and for your patience.
The meeting is adjourned.