[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, March 20, 1997
.0904 
[English]
The Chair (Ms Mary Clancy (Halifax, Lib.)): Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Welcome.
General, if you would bear with us for a moment, we have a motion to deal with, and then we'll start the regular proceedings.
Mr. Jacob, I believe you have a motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Yes, madam Chair. I would like to move that Mr. Jean Leroux be appointed Vice-Chair of the committee.
.0905
[English]
The Chair: I probably should have done a little explaining. In the recent changes in the Bloc, Mr. Brien, who was the official opposition critic for defence, was transferred from his duties as defence critic to industry, I believe. Monsieur Jacob is coming to the committee and has proposed Monsieur Leroux for the position of official opposition vice-chair. If there is no discussion I will call the question.
Motion agreed to
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Leroux, congratulations.
An Honourable Member: Have a good day. Do I have the right to go for a walk on Thursday morning?
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Certainly.
[English]
The Chair: We do that in our party too. We send the women over to make sure things are going the right way. Merci, madame. Thank you very much.
We have with us this morning, from the Department of National Defence, Lieutenant-General David Kinsman, Assistant Deputy Minister for Personnel. Welcome, General Kinsman. I'd ask you to make an opening statement. Before I do I will warn members, the witness, participants, and others in the room that we have been told there will be a bell at 10:05 a.m. It will be a half-hour bell. If we haven't completed, we can probably take about ten minutes to wind up at that point.
General Kinsman.
Lieutenant-General David Kinsman (Assistant Deputy Minister (Personnel), Department of National Defence): Madam Chair and members of the committee, it is indeed a pleasure to appear in front of you today and to conclude your technical briefings from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces. Let me also say on behalf of the men and women of the Canadian Forces how much they and their families appreciate the challenge you have accepted in conducting this important and timely review of the social and economic circumstances of our military members.
My brief to you today has three themes. First I would like to draw some linkages between the minister's words to you last month and the technical briefings you have heard over the past three weeks. Second, I would like to highlight some of the social and economic issues from these technical briefings. Third, I would like to offer some thoughts on Canada's commitment to Canadian Forces members as you prepare to visit Canadian Forces bases and units in two weeks' time.
[Translation]
In his appearance before you, the Minister spoke of the unique nature of CF service and then asked you to examine the resulting social and economic challenges facing our service men and women.
Along this vein, I would ask you to consider how each unique element of service life should be recognized by the government of Canada. For example, how should the government's policy of social and economic support recognize members' liability to deploy without notice? Our policies must recognize the very real possibility that any member might be moved from the relative comfort of his or her normal routine to a hostile, physically demanding, field environment with primitive living conditions on very short notice.
Just before Christmas 1996, we had 1,500 CF men and women on standby to deploy to Zaire on very short notice. An advanced party from this group was warned on Monday, 12 November and was in Zaire on Saturday the 17th. Many of the soldiers had recently returned from Bosnia or Haiti.
.0910
As other Canadians were making plans for the festive season, these CF members had their plans abruptly altered when their nation called them to duty.
It was yet another example where the nature of our work goes beyond the commonly accepted work responsibilities of the average Canadian. To be sure, rapid deployments and lengthy training exercises are part of our job. We need these deployments to maintain our operational effectiveness. Our members accept this challenge willingly. But we, the leadership of our men and women in uniform, must recognize their personal sacrifices and ensure there is a framework of support systems in place to look after loved ones left behind.
[English]
Another unique aspect of service life that was pointed out by the Minister of National Defence and the Acting Chief of Defence Staff is the geographic instability Canadian Forces members endure and the resultant family costs associated with frequent moves. A relevant question, then, is how should policies of social and economic support recognize this instability and financial hardship?
Within the Canadian Forces we are actively reducing posting movement, but some movement of people will always be required. To clarify our policies in this area, we have previously submitted a briefing note outlining the rationale behind our posting policy and some of the initiatives we are taking to reduce movement. However, given that we must move our people from time to time, what is our obligation to CF members to ensure that their standard of living is not adversely affected?
Geographic instability impacts on members and their families in significant ways. The building of home equity, so important in preparing for retirement, becomes much more difficult when one must contend with periodic moves. Since many spouses are either unable to find suitable employment or maintain a level of equitable remuneration, the family income of many service couples is significantly and adversely affected. Most CF children have to attend many schools over the course of their academic career, with the accompanying adjustment problems this experience brings.
How should our policy of social and economic support recognize family separations caused by military service? Most Canadians take attendance at their children's hockey games and school recitals, anniversaries, births and birthdays, graduations and other important family events for granted. Canadian Forces members don't, or can't. There are few military people indeed who have not missed important family events because they were away on duty. For example, there were 2,032 Canadian Forces men and women who did not spend Christmas Day with family and loved ones this past year. Instead, they were serving Canada abroad on peacekeeping operations.
[Translation]
How should the Forces' policy of social and economical support recognize the restrictions on personal freedoms of CF members? As you know, CF members are subject to disciplinary rules and military orders 24 hours a day, regardless of whether they are actually performing a military duty or not.
Members of the CF are, by law, limited in their ability to associate, run for public office, exercise aspects of their freedom of speech, or at times, choose where to live in Canada. Furthermore, they do not have two important freedoms that many other Canadians, including their public service counterparts, take for granted.
Like other essential service providers such as police, firemen, etc., military members, in seeking equitable compensation, benefits, and other forms of support, have neither the means to voice their collective concerns and bargain on their own behalf; nor the right to withhold services when issues of fair treatment are in question. It is recognized that the essential contribution of the CF to national security precludes the right to withhold services.
.0915
However, the point to be stressed here is that some mechanism is required to ensure that the government and the CF acknowledge this essential contribution and honours their obligation to their military personnel in an appropriate and timely manner.
[English]
How should we recognize the risk of injury or death that goes with military service? I know this committee is well aware of the risky nature of our business, but most Canadians are unaware of the stress levels on Canadian Forces families when mom, dad, husband, or wife are deployed. CF service is at times a dangerous line of work, and its impact on members and their families is significant. This stress is heightened by our technologically advanced media, which can show terrifying images on the news every evening from the hot spots in which loved ones are serving Canadian interests.
At the outset of this exercise, the minister asked you to examine the social and economic challenges facing Canadian Forces members, with a view to developing a renewed social and economic contract. Over the last months you have received technical briefings and background readings on the range of issues that were outlined in the minister's original letter to you.
These briefings have focused on various social and economic mechanisms that are in place to support our men and women in uniform. What I would like to do now is to highlight some of the key areas in each of these issues as you prepare to visit Canadian Forces bases and units across the country.
First let me deal with one of the most visible, tangible, and emotional issues: compensation. The Acting Chief of Defence Staff and Colonel Lemay have already suggested to you that the central aspect of the Canadian Forces compensation and benefits may not be the tools to determine the levels of compensation, but rather the settlement process. I reiterate this point. What we need is a transparent process that implements compensation and benefits changes and settlements quickly.
Any renewed socio-economic contract must address the contemporary quality-of-life concerns of the members of the Canadian Forces such as family stability, the importance to many of dual spousal income and career for an acceptable standard of living, the potential for loss of home equity as a result of relocation, and the wide variance of accommodation costs from one location to another.
In the area of compensation and benefits, the problems of loss of spousal income or career and the need for dual pension income at retirement might be the most difficult challenges facing us as we move towards the new century.
[Translation]
Accommodation assistance allowance provides financial assistance to members of the Canadian Forces who are required to serve in certain geographic locations where local rental costs are high. It is calculated according to location, rank, family size, and type of accommodation rented. We have personnel relocation policies in place to reduce postings over the span of a career, but these policies will result in some members being posted to high rental cost areas for longer periods of time. Consequently the probability of "catch up" postings to low-cost locations over the span of a career will be much less likely to occur in the future.
A review concluded that some modified form of the accommodation assistance allowance that addresses cost of living concerns is required now more than ever. When members are assigned to a new location without their families, they may be authorized, either for operational or for personal reasons such as the potential loss of spousal employment, children's educational considerations, or health concerns, an imposed restriction, thereby receiving rations and quarters at no cost to the member.
Current policy normally limits the receipt of this allowance to one year. Given changing lifestyles, societal requirements and organizational restructuring and rationalization, we must resolve whether, and for how long, CF members should be entitled to receive compensation for dual residency expenses for reasons of separations which are essentially personal, but dictated by military requirements.
.0920
[English]
After pay, housing is one of the most discussed topics. We have provided you with a briefing on the history and condition of the housing portfolio and of the challenges we face in coming to grips with our housing problems.
To a great extent, the nature and scope of the Canadian Forces Housing Agency's work will depend on the housing policy the Canadian Forces adopt. A policy that leans more towards encouraging families to make greater use of housing in urban communities will move the agency more into the role where it provides information and coordinates with local rental and real estate agencies, ensuring that when families are posted to new locations they have up-to-date, objective advice on local housing markets.
A policy that favours provision of military housing on or near bases will increase demands on the agency to find funding to renew our aging housing stock through renovation, replacement, or through leasing from the private sector.
At locations such as Cold Lake and Gagetown, where the local communities simply do not have the housing market to support large numbers of military families, there would appear to be little choice on how to provide housing for military members. For these sites, the Canadian Forces housing authority will need a source of capital.
The more difficult policy decisions are at sites where there is housing available on the private market. At these sites, the department must determine if a supply of military family housing is required on or near the base in order to establish a core military community. Current government policy does not support provision of military housing in these areas.
Clearly, we are at a crossroad in the provision of housing for our military families. There would appear to be little doubt that the era of large estates of military housing at all locations across Canada is coming to a close. We know we need to tailor our housing strategies to match local market conditions and have recognized this by moving to a site-specific approach to assessing our housing requirements.
We need to ensure that where we move to a greater reliance on the private sector, suitable, affordable housing for our military families will always be available and comprehensive information about that housing can be provided to our families. Where we determine that there is a military need to have our own housing on or near bases, we need to have a government-supported rationale for doing so.
Lastly, in our more remote locations, where we must provide housing because there is not a sufficient private market, we must have the means to renew our deteriorated or deteriorating stock.
I hope that through your work you can provide some guidance as to where DND and government policy on housing for military might be approved and that you can make recommendations on the tools and resources that the Canadian Forces Housing Agency can use to carry out the important work of providing housing services to our members.
[Translation]
The CF has recognized the requirement to re-capitalize our personnel support infrastructure. I know that we have promised you a copy of our current review as soon as it has been completed by the end of May. In the meantime, I would encourage you to familiarize yourselves with the personnel support program infrastructure and the community programs during your upcoming visits and note the impact these facilities and programs have on the quality of life in our military communities.
Spousal employment and child care concerns are the two issues most frequently raised by spouses of CF members. We look forward to your views on the extent to which the public should assist spouses in coping with constant relocation and under-employment. Similarly we invite you to examine the issue of child care needs in the CF and offer an opinion on whether these needs, precipitated by military operational requirements, are a valid charge against the public purse.
The care we provide our casualties, veterans and retirees, is a fundamental leadership issue. The imminent creation of our NDHQ disability, compensation, information advisory cell will provide important assistance to the chain of command to ensure that we improve service to casualties and veterans. Furthermore, our recent initiative to enhance the cooperation between DND, Veterans Affairs Canada, and organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion will be instrumental in ensuring that we look after all those who have made sacrifices for their country.
.0925
Nevertheless, your independent review will help us to ensure we have it right every time.
[English]
In order to place the myriad of questions you were investigating into perspective, the answer to one question is crucial: what is the nature of the mutual obligations between the service member and this country? The relationship of the soldier, sailor, airman, and airwoman and his or her responsibilities to Canada are well understood and are clearly defined in the National Defence Act and the Queen's Regulations and Orders. However, there is no such formal articulation of the responsibilities of Canada to its men and women in uniform. As a result, much time and effort has been spent in the past trying to develop a socio-economic framework that provides fair recognition for unique services rendered.
Over the last decade, the CF leadership has attempted to produce a document outlining its fundamental responsibilities to its personnel. There were differing views on the extent to which such a statement could be made explicit. There were those who would not promise services or benefits. They were not confident that they would be able to deliver due to budgetary considerations or lack of authority. Conversely, others would not accept softly worded statements.
The independent status and level of authority of your committee allows it to address the fundamental question that was posed in the minister's letter to you. That question was: what is the obligation of the Canadian government with respect to economic and social support to Canadian Forces members? The answer to this question is fundamental to the long-term well-being of the members of the Canadian Forces.
I would suggest that the extent to which this committee can articulate a commitment to CF members in a succinct yet encompassing manner will make a historical statement that recognizes the contribution, dedication, and sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform and their families. Furthermore, your efforts will also afford us the opportunity to validate our current personnel processes in DND and the Canadian Forces.
Your independent review should not only identify those areas in which both the government and the CF should make changes; it should also confirm if we are on the right track in other areas of personnel policies.
[Translation]
Before I conclude, I wish to point out that in your background notes for today's presentation I have taken the liberty to include a list of the key issues or questions that you have already begun to explore and which the technical briefers who have preceded me have indicated are of interest to this committee. I hope that you will find this list, which is not intended to be either restrictive or exhaustive, helpful in your deliberations and investigations.
During your upcoming visits you will hear a great number of views on how we look after our troops, their families, and former members of the CF. I sincerely hope that you are all able to partake in the full visit schedule and that you will find your contact with the men and women of the CF and their families informative.
I know that some of you have expressed concerns that members or their families will be reticent to tell you their side of the story. Let me assure you that all levels of the senior leadership of the CF have stressed, not only verbally, but also in a comprehensive, written campaign, that it is absolutely essential that everyone who wishes to do so has the opportunity to speak to you in an open and candid manner.
A message from the Acting Chief of Defence Staff to all CF members, along with two articles sent to all internal publications including base newspapers, strongly encourages all CF members and their family members to participate in the hearings and to speak frankly about their concerns.
I know that my support team under Colonel Arp will assist you to ensure that you have open and free access to the opinions of our soldiers, sailors and air personnel. I am confident that you will find the information you are seeking.
[English]
In conclusion, our men and women in military uniform have provided Canada with distinguished service throughout the history of our fine country. When called upon, they have fulfilled their responsibilities well. Their contribution has been clear. Less clear to them at times has been the appreciation of Canadians for the sacrifices they have made.
.0930
In his appearance before you last month, the minister was asked what was bothering the troops the most. He pointed to two issues. The first was the Canadian public's perception of the Canadian Forces and how this perception was affecting the morale of Canadian Forces members and their families. Most Canadian Forces members are doing an excellent job for Canada, but their image has been tainted by the unacceptable actions of a very few. The minister underscored the need for some form of recognition from Canada that the performance of CF members is appreciated, valued, and recognized.
The second issue the minister referred to is the wide disparity between salary and benefit levels that has occurred over the years and the fact that the traditional connection with the public service has not been respected. He pointed out that CF members recognize the financial constraints the government is facing and that all they expect in this regard is fair and equitable treatment.
Let me close by saying that your willingness to undertake this review sends a strong positive message to Canadian Forces members and their families. Your report will be the cornerstone for the statement of support they seek for the future.
I thank you for your attention, wish you bon voyage on your upcoming visits, and look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much, General Kinsman. I want to particularly thank you for those comments with regard to the committee's agenda and how the defence department has responded by getting the message out. I might just say to you as well that Mr. Wood and I both, and I believe, Mr. Richardson, have spoken to different members of the armed forces in our respective areas, and I believe some opposition members have as well. So we are all trying to get the word out to as many people as possible so that we will have the kind of response we are looking for.
I will open the floor for questions. Mr. Leroux?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): General, I would like to congratulate you on your brief and your presentation this morning, which provide quite a good summary of what should be done.
As I consider all these issues, I wonder whether there are possible solutions and whether important decisions are being taken to change the future situation of the Canadian Forces.
You said, and I remember Admiral Larry Murray also pointing this out, that the plan is to devote one third of our military staff to peace-keeping. The current level is slightly lower.
Madam Chair, I remember that when reviewing the suggestions of the joint committee, we proposed that Canada should not agree to be involved in every mission, and should not always be the first to join in and the last to leave.
We proposed in the document that the world be divided into regions, and that Canada be involved mainly in the Americas. Obviously, that suggestion was not accepted. I wonder whether it is because we are trying to undertake too much that we don't know what we should be focusing on at the present time. That is my first point.
Second, in your presentation you highlighted certain irritants. The first was compensation levels, the second, and most important, was accommodation. There was also the issue of marriage relations and, finally, children. I think that situation is the case for all Canadians today. You have the same problems in the Canadian Forces, although perhaps experienced in a different way, as all other Canadians and Quebeckers.
It's the same situation everywhere. First, everyone wants to be paid more. Second, everyone wants adequate housing, of course, and when you are married, have a spouse and children, everyone wants to provide the best possible opportunities for their children.
.0935
First, there is a tradition in the Canadian Forces that assignments should be on an approximately two-year basis. This means that children and spouses obliged to accompany the person assigned often have to readapt, change schools, etc. I wonder whether it might not be appropriate to extend the assignment period to four or five years, which would give children and spouses more time to settle in one location and benefit from the opportunities there.
When you have to move from one language to another, that also poses problems. When you move from one region to another, children may have begun school in French and then have to continue in English, or vice-versa. I don't know if the opposite situation exists. Perhaps it does, but I think the first example occurs more often; they begin in French and have to continue in English. My mother experienced that when she was a child. She was in Saint John, New Brunswick, where all her education had been in English. She came to Quebec, she was in fifth grade and they put her in third grade. What do you expect, she had lost her French. That was a long time ago.
This is a problem, and I think there are solutions, but the Canadian Forces have to realize that we have a professional army, one that is old. We don't have any privates. All we have is officers and senior officers.
There is also another point. The other day I proposed an army where many of the members could join for a 10-year period, after which they would return to civilian life. You could also have officers, because you would need professional and experienced officers. They would continue their career, but they would constitute only a certain percentage of the Forces.
I would also like to talk about the role of peace-keeping. I would appreciate it if you could answer that even though there are a number of ideas combined here. I think we have a problem in this regard. First, as I said earlier, we are no longer able to assume all the responsibilities we would like around the world. We don't have enough troups. We don't have enough soldiers to do so. We have to bring in people from the reserves, which is a good thing in itself, but those people have to feel comfortable within the Armed Forces.
Therefore, if our army was young... Madam Chair, we have to realize one day that we are a medium-sized country, with a population of 30 million. We cover a large area, but we have a relatively small population. Therefore, could a decision not be taken one day to assume commitments which we are able to meet, so that we are not always struggling to fulfil them?
I would be grateful if you could respond to these points. I know that it is not easy to do so. There is a lot of talk, and we seemed to go around in circles without actually resolving anything.
LGen Kinsman: I hope I have noted those points correctly. I've taken a lot of notes. I think that there are two or three themes on which your questions are based.
First, are we undertaking too many peace-keeping missions at the same time or, to put in another way, are we trying to do too much? I can assure you that the issue of the deployment, the number of people overseas or available here in Canada, is considered very seriously when looking at possible future deployments. As you no doubt know and in fact mentioned, we said we would like to have a rotation of one year in three. We have other rules stating that in normal circumstances an individual should not be deployed for a period of one year following his or her return to Canada.
Frankly, as Assistant Deputy Minister for Personnel, I act as a kind of watch-dog to ensure that this rule is respected, because it is very important. Our people always tend to volunteer. We have people who like being involved in operations. In fact, that is why they join the Forces, why they are selected to be part of the Forces. So, to some extent, we have to take a somewhat paternalistic approach to ensure that they look after their family and their responsibilities.
.0940
That is the purpose of the current rule and I feel a responsibility to ensure it serves that purpose.
You also mentioned the number of assignments our members have to undertake, and you said that they were transferred about every two years. There are no doubt exceptions, but the fact is that on average our officers move every three years, a little more than every three years, and our NCOs about every four years.
At the same time, we are trying to stabilize our families as much as possible. We try to leave them longer in the same place. Now that we have consolidated the allocation of our bases and our operations, we are currently trying to asses whether an individual can have a career while remaining in a job on a certain base, such as Edmonton which is increasing this year, and undertake various assignments consistent with career and development objectives while remaining in the same city. As we have fewer bases, fewer stations, fewer units, we believe that we will be able to do so.
Moreover, I think you have already seen the statistics presented to you, which show that over the past five years the number of family assignments has decreased. It dropped from 21,000 a year about five years ago to 11,000 or 12,000 last year. I believe that this shows we are on the right track, the one you suggested.
The age of the people in the Canadian Forces is a very interesting question. On the one hand, a soldier is often perceived and described as being a young person. Such a perception certainly corresponds to what is required by certain situations, namely physical strength and mobility. It is true that the older you are, the less you will want to move, particularly when you have a family.
On the other hand, the Forces are becoming more and more technology-based. Therefore, we need people who have learned, either within the Forces or before joining, how to support various technologies and use them. Often such training is provided in-house; it is a type of investment.
We also want to ensure that we retain this investment and benefit from it. If you don't have to tell someone that he must leave because he is too old to stay, but rather that he can operate usefully for another 10, 15 or 20 years within the military, that is also an important consideration.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Frazer, please.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands, Ref.): Thank you, Madam Chair.
Jim, I'd like to go to a comment and pick up a little bit on what Mr. Leroux asked you. It was regarding your statement where you said, referring to Zaire, that an advance party from this group was warned on Monday, November 12, and was in Zaire on Saturday the 17th. Many of the soldiers had recently returned from Bosnia or Haiti.
I understand that, as you said this morning, the minimum term between redeployments on operational missions such as these is one year. Your statement implies that this was less than a year, and I was concerned because when Mr. Fowler stood in the United Nations and said Canada is going to send 1,500 troops to Zaire, it appeared to me that there had been no consultation with the government, and certainly none with Parliament.
.0945
I wondered whether Mr. Chrétien, our ambassador to the United States, and Mr. Fowler had made this up on their own without having consulted you. Were you consulted, and were any of these people in less than the year's space?
LGen Kinsman: I'll talk strictly from my personal experience. I'm not necessarily always consulted personally, but my staff is always consulted. I constitute what you would recognize when I talk about the J-1 or G-1 function, which is the personnel function within this headquarters. At any time any contingency planning is going on, whatever it may be, whether it's large or small, a portion of my organization and officers therein will be consulted with respect to the feasibility and what the implications are of that rotation from a personnel standpoint.
I would like to say too that I would not want to overstate in fact the number of people who would have been deployed to Zaire. In most cases some of our military people have certain capabilities and they are there largely to help set up deployments, communications and so on being a good case. I wouldn't want to leave you with the wrong impression, because as I said in my previous answer, I have charged my people and I take a close personal interest, in conjunction with the Deputy Chief of Defence Staff, to make sure that this rule, which I think is the minimum we should respect, is respected.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Yes, General. In fact, I think that one year should be doubled to two years, but I understand that our force size now pretty well precludes that.
It just concerned me that we had troops deployed in Bosnia and in Haiti and here we were offering to take on yet another... I won't get into the specifics of the mission, because I think it was ludicrous that we took it on with so little knowledge of what was going on and no rules of engagement or how we were going to get out of there and the rest of it.
The other one I have is with regard to the service provided to our troops who return from those missions. Specifically, I want to get to reserves, because I think with the regulars they sort of have a group of people who are in the same situation and therefore there's mutual support. The reservist comes back and he or she goes back into the civilian world and doesn't have that mutual shoulder to lean on.
I was assured by General Campbell when he briefed us that in fact this was looked after, but in talking to reservists after that, I found they are not satisfied that in fact they do get enough support for things like post-traumatic stress syndrome and so on. Are you able to address that one?
LGen Kinsman: I am, inasmuch as I would not say that I share a concern, but I would be less than candid if I said that's probably not the area of our post-deployment where it's hardest to provide a service that is comprehensive for the individuals. Most recently, within the past year or so, we've actually changed our policy so that when an individual reservist who is working with a formed unit comes back to Canada, they actually remain with that formed unit for a period of time of a month or so.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Is that sufficient?
LGen Kinsman: For some individuals it is. My medical folks will tell me that in some cases the post-traumatic stress manifestations may not be seen for a long period of time after that. At some particular point we have to make a judgment and say that if that's going to manifest itself within 30 days or 45 days for the majority of people who are going to have a difficulty in re-adapting, then we're catching most of those people.
I believe the understanding 25 or 30 years ago, or certainly in the Second World War - and with your background I think you'd share this opinion with me - was that post-traumatic stress syndrome was something for sissies. We booted people out of the military and sent them home. We've come a long way in the last 10 years, even in the last five years, in understanding what this phenomenon is, how it manifests itself, how we can avoid it to begin with, which is where an awful lot of our effort is actually deployed, and then how to follow up.
The reservist requires a particular leadership role, assuming that the individual in coming back stays associated with the militia. If an individual comes back and for whatever reason finds permanent employment or wants to leave the reserves, it becomes very problematic for us to keep a trailer on that individual to say we will track that person for whatever, five or six years.
.0950
What I think we can do, and what we're trying to do, is let people know, whether they're regular force or reserve force, that we have services available and that we have no compunction at all...in fact we encourage people to get a hold of us and ask the question. So even for an individual who had got out of the reserve, if he started to have problems and if he were looking for help, at least we're a point of contact.
Mr. Jack Frazer: I understand that. I guess my concern is that it requires the reservist himself or herself to recognize that he or she has a problem when in fact I understand it's quite possible that he or she may not recognize that. I wonder if there has been any consideration given to a recall at a year's timeframe or something just to associate with this individual and see if everything is all right.
LGen Kinsman: To be frank, there hasn't been a consideration of that, although it's a possibility.
Mr. Jack Frazer: If I could move on to a question on pay, Colonel Lemay gave us a very good briefing a couple of days ago, and I suggested to him that what might be incorporated into the Canadian Forces pay system was a post index type of thing, as is used overseas. He suggested that with all of the provincial rules - they differ from province to province - this was a very difficult matter, and I don't for a moment deny it. But I suggested to him, before the chair cut me off, that with computers we can do a whole bunch of things. It strikes me that you could build a computer program that would in fact incorporate a basic Canadian standard and then a post index for wherever they were posted in the country. You would say, all right, if you go to Cold Lake, this is your post index and you get a substantial amount more than other people, and so on. In this way, you could address some of the disparities that occur in postings from high-cost areas to low-cost areas and vice versa.
LGen Kinsman: I was aware of the interchange you'd had, and at this particular point, and given, as I've mentioned in my text, that the disparities occurring across the country, which have always been of some concern either for us individually or as leaders, or people who were responsible for personnel policies, whatever the context, have become an even greater concern now because of the stability I was referring to in the answer to the first question...
For example, the navy has, within the last few years, gone to the concept of a home port division, which may have existed in theory in the past but wasn't so much in practice and wasn't articulated that way. You could have an individual who, after basic training, moves to Esquimalt, for example, which happens to be one of our focal points now, to largely spend the remainder of his or her career there.
Similarly, if we are successful in achieving geographic stability, we will have solved one problem, but we will have exacerbated the problem to which you refer.
All of that is to say we're looking at any number of means by which we can balance this out so that we can look people in the eye and say, no matter where you go, your disposable income is going to be more or less the same, and give them a methodology whereby they can see that and know that. That may be problematic, but it's one of the next large undertakings we have. Actually, as I said in my closing comments, one of the reasons we're happy to have the views of the committee, because I have to say that such equalization is not going to be without its difficulties when we're negotiating with other agencies, because it's not there for other branches of the government, necessarily, or for private industry...
The Chair: Speaking of cutting you off, Mr. Frazer...Mr. Wood.
Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): It's often been said, General Kinsman, that the way to judge a society is to look at how it treats its senior citizens. Similarly, in the military, how retirees are treated is a good reflection of how the forces treat their people in general.
The overwhelming opinion expressed by military people I have talked to in the last little while is that the Canadian Forces does not adequately support its retiring personnel. For example, pensions are based on promotions and rank, but promotions have been frozen, so with little chance of promotion, obviously what incentive is there for a soldier to stay in the forces?
.0955
Also, I'm told there is only token support for personnel once they are retired. Some people who I've talked to have suggested that a retraining or an enhancement program for retirees might ease the transition.
My question, General, comes down to this. I'll be very honest. I hope to use your answer when we talk to the rank and file soldiers when the committee goes on the road in a couple of weeks. My question is, what does DND do for its retiring career personnel, and are there any plans to further assist them as they retire from the forces?
LGen Kinsman: It's a very good question. I believe - without going into the specifics - that there are a number of things we do to prepare people for retirement. Whether or not those are adequate will depend upon individuals' views. I think you're aware of the second career assistance network we have, which is not a new innovation, but by the same token it's relatively recent. In there, the moneys that are available for people for retraining... I personally believe that given that they have been there for some time at the same value, they need to be reassessed to see whether or not $2,000 is a fair amount of money to expect an individual to be able to buy retraining once they leave the forces. I believe there's an answer inside, or the potential for an answer. I don't have it yet.
One of the areas we're looking at right now is the whole question of self-improvement as an individual progresses through their career, whether it's academic or technical. My folks are working right now on a system of equivalency, for example, so that an individual who's a technician in the military, who has technical skills that are acknowledged to be of top quality, has some form of equivalency recognition when they leave the Canadian Forces, whether that's in the form of a blue book, or a piece of paper, or something they can take to an employer and show what their skills are, and it's easily translatable to the requirements a subsequent employer would have.
There's a combination of things. There's no one single answer. If we can do the equivalency, if we can assist people to enhance their education and technical skills while they're in the military... We are planning to undertake a review to see whether or not the retraining benefits that are available on the SCAN program are appropriate, whether they meet the needs. On the other hand, of course, we have to take a look at the affordability of them.
I leave it to you to decide whether or not that allows you to quote me either positively or negatively when you talk to your constituents and the people you meet as you go around the country.
There is another dimension aside from the training and it is whether people feel - and I think the answer to this is yes, frankly - that when they're out of the military, the Canadian Forces do not pay very much attention to them.
When General Dallaire was speaking with you I think he was talking about the undertaking we have now with Veterans Affairs Canada, but more specifically with the Legion, to try to create a transfer of people from the active military to an organization that understands the military, largely comprised of former Canadian Forces members, so that they don't feel necessarily that one day they were here in uniform with an ID card and the next day they were out on their own, trying to make their way in Canadian society.
Mr. Bob Wood: You talked about the readjustment of around $2,000 or something when people get out of the armed forces.
LGen Kinsman: I would ask somebody here to confirm.
Mr. Bob Wood: I think it was something like that. Mr. Jamieson, who I notice is in attendance today and was with us yesterday, put an interesting proposal to us, especially as far as spouses are concerned. I hope I get this right. He made a suggestion that there should be a program for spouses when they are uprooted. Obviously they go with their husbands or whatever, and they have to start a new career at some other place. There's very little support for them. He brought a suggestion forward, which I thought was very good, that there should be some kind of a mechanism that would allow military wives or spouses who aren't in the military an adjustment period as well, where they have access to roughly $2,000 to upgrade their CVs. I thought it was a great idea. I just wondered if you thought the same.
.1000
LGen Kinsman: I would not foreclose on that idea at all. In fact, consistent with it, we have undertaken within the last couple of years to actually help spouses with respect to the writing of résumés and so on. I guess that's relatively small compared to what the proposal you had yesterday could imply. But no, I wouldn't foreclose on the idea. It's always been apparent, but I think we are now more and more aware that - and this is not a large extrapolation - the operational effectiveness of the organization depends upon how dedicated the people are and what the morale is within the organization.
That is not dependent solely upon what type of equipment they're using, what kind of training they have, and what kind of facilities they're in operationally. It also depends upon how happy their families are being associated with the military, the type of accommodation they're in, and whether they have a sense - and I'd be the first to say the military is not asking for more than what is fair, based on the income of other Canadians and the problems Canadians face. But are people happy being in the military, and are they able to accept that there are these differences and see that they are being accommodated properly?
That's a circuitous way of answering your question, but if there's any way we can make the entity of the family, as well as the members themselves, happy with the military, we have to explore those possibilities.
Mr. Bob Wood: Good.
This will be my last question. Speaking of families, there seems to be a lack of compassion - it's the perception anyway - for married service couples when it comes to postings. A lot of these people are facing postings in different locations, as you know, and this is extremely harsh on the family. It obviously increases personal stress levels for the spouses. I guess this policy is viewed as a result of the downsizing, in that there are fewer active bases for personnel to be posted to, as you mentioned before.
Now they have to have a certain amount of field time, and I think the universality of service requires that both males and females do the field and deployed duties. I guess part of this is there's a lot more flexibility. With more families in the service, there's a natural increase in married couples. Is there any thought of making these postings more flexible for married service personnel? Obviously, the individual left behind is going to be left behind for a fair amount of time. It's up to four years, I guess. I'm not totally familiar with all that.
Has there been any thought of doing that? You're well aware of North Bay and so am I. I know that when people went to Camp Borden or Toronto, they could still stay in North Bay; they could travel back and forth. But now with fewer bases, as you say...they may be in Edmonton, Gagetown, or wherever they travel. Has there been any thought of posting them together so they're not away as much?
LGen Kinsman: The career managers in recent years - in fact, since we started to have married service couples - have worked to the greatest extent they can. I can assure you that one thing our career managers work very hard on is not to dislocate families if that's at all possible. Actually, the larger percentage of married couples do live in the same place at the same time, as we talk today, although many of the married couples will have a period of time when they are separated for whatever reason.
Without being able to put a fine point on it, as I said, when you have larger bases, where you have more units at one base, I think there's potential for us to increase even more the number of married couples who are able to stay together for the majority of their careers.
That having been said, I think I would probably be misleading you if I were to say that we would be able to get to a point at which all married service couples were able to spend their entire careers and their married lives in the same place. There is a myriad of requirements, whether it's training, employment, or whatever. In some cases if you have two couples of the same rank and trade and you have a requirement for only one person in one place, as a career manager you're faced with the potential of having to split that couple up for that period of time.
.1005
The note I've received says that we will be providing you with the number of married service couples we have and our success rate in putting people together.
I'd just terminate my answer to your question by saying that I think we understand intuitively that to split families up is not going to contribute to that operational sense I referred to earlier, and so we work very hard at keeping them together. There are some practicalities that have to be recognized, though, in some cases.
Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you.
The Chair: Now I'll terminate you, Mr. Wood. Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacob.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Good morning, Lieutenant-General. My question concerns real estate losses. Colonel Lemay talked about these last Tuesday, and you also referred to them this morning. When transferred or assigned to another base, some members who already own their house may find it difficult to sell it or to do so for the required price. You mentioned that there is an assistance program to off-set possible losses. I know that at the present time there is a pilot program both for public servants and the military, concerning the guaranteed sale of one's house in cases of transfer.
You are no doubt aware of this pilot program which has been in existence for approximately two and an half or three years. Does this program appear to correct the problem of projected losses? Does it resolve the problem of expected losses in the case of transfers, as you mentioned in your report?
LGen Kinsman: This program, which began in April 1996, has helped enormously. It will continue to exist as a pilot program in the government for two years.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Is every member of the Armed Forces free to use or not to use this program?
LGen Kinsman: Absolutely.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Has the majority of members being transferred registered or not registered for this program?
LGen Kinsman: I don't have any figures, but I could perhaps ask Colonel Lemay to help me with this. However, I know that in general the program has been positively received since its inception. In fact, some people are concerned that it is a pilot program, rather than a permanent program, because of the positive reception given to it. The GHSP, or Guaranteed Home Sale Plan, provides support to a family which before was alone in determining or accepting the price offered for its home. As you no doubt are aware, there were other programs in the past to help families to recover any financial losses resulting from the sale of their home. However, the GHSP limits such losses because the selling price is based on the current market rates. This program has been positively received and used by many people. There are even more people who hope that the program will become permanent.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: What has to be done to ensure that the program becomes permanent? Will your recommendations in that regard be based on the number of people joining the program or using it? This program comes under the Treasury Board.
.1010
LGen Kinsman: It is primarily a government program, but the Department of National Defence will no doubt have considerable influence here since it moves its employees more than any other department. However, it will be a government decision, not one made only by the department.
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Jacob.
I'm going to call Mr. Hart right now.
Just to let you know what's going on, the 30-minute bell is ringing. There are 24 minutes left.
Mr. Hart, you've got a five-minute round. I know that Mr. Bertrand then wanted a question. I'll start to get antsy at some point.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan - Similkameen - Merritt, Ref.): Welcome, General Kinsman. I have a couple of quick questions. I'll try to be as brief as possible.
You mentioned in your briefing notes that over the past while there have been several discussions regarding the socio-economic problems facing people in the military. This isn't something new. It's been going on for quite some time. Were any recommendations presented to governments prior to this committee on how to deal with these problems?
LGen Kinsman: I'd have to plead a certain amount of ignorance on that. They have not been presented to governments per se, not in a formal fashion like this, but certainly proposing changes to benefits is an ongoing process as part of my function - so to government, yes, through Treasury Board.
Mr. Jim Hart: It's my understanding that there are now a number of recommendations before Treasury Board that haven't been acted on yet. Is that correct?
LGen Kinsman: There are a number of recommendations in front of Treasury Board that have not yet been approved, but not because of any reticence on behalf of Treasury Board; in fact, we have a number of issues that we're very optimistic will work through the normal process.
Mr. Jim Hart: Do they overlap the area of concern this committee is dealing with?
LGen Kinsman: In some cases they do, yes. For example, there are a number of issues on the table now with the Treasury Board with respect to benefits and compensation of reserves. It's a fairly significant...I would say package, but it's not a package per se. A number of individual items are in there, but when they're viewed in their entirety it will be a very significant package, I would suggest, for the reserves.
Mr. Jim Hart: Is there, for example, some form of annuity for reserves with long service?
LGen Kinsman: Yes, a reserve force retirement allowance is one that has made it almost all the way through the program. Other issues such as 85% parity are very much up front in that activity.
Mr. Jim Hart: It's fair to say that there is somewhere, written down on paper, some of the things this committee is dealing with, that there are recommendations for Treasury Board.
LGen Kinsman: Absolutely.
Mr. Jim Hart: Again, I think I've stressed this before, but I would like to see those recommendations before this committee.
The situation facing the family with Canadian Armed Forces personnel is not unique to military personnel. I think it's important to point out that there have been 37 tax increases under this current government; there were 70-odd with the previous government. Those tax increases over that period of time have affected families in general.
Yesterday there was discussion of dual-income families, and they're dual-income families because they want to be. I would argue that many dual-income families are doing it out of necessity and not out of the desire to be separated from their children. In particular, when it comes to the military, I think military personnel would prefer if the one parent who's available stay home with the children in order to make sure that the children are raised properly.
This comes back to what I think is the negligence of government, in particular, to make sure that our people who serve in the military under these unique characteristics, and let's not forget about the eleven Canadian soldiers who died in Bosnia...government has failed miserably when it comes to dealing with this whole area of social and economic concerns facing the Canadian Armed Forces.
I find it particularly disturbing that this committee is going to spend some eight months on an issue that this government should deal with immediately. I think it's a lack of leadership.
.1015
Would you agree that a good attribute of leadership is to show that you're able to make a decision? Can you explain why, in your opinion, governments in general have failed to deal with this issue facing the Canadian Armed Forces?
The Chair: Oh, I don't think that General Kinsman really has to answer the last half of that question, Mr. Hart. You have it on the record.
General, you may deal with that question as you wish, but I consider the part about explaining why governments...excuse me.
A voice: The facts are wrong. As usual, the facts are all wrong.
The Chair: Order, please.
May I just say that I consider the last part of the question out of order, General, but anything you would like to comment on, please feel free. If you feel you don't want to comment, you can feel free not to as well.
LGen Kinsman: I thank you for letting me off the hook on the last part.
The Chair: Don't thank me. That's what I'm here for, to keep Mr. Hart in line.
LGen Kinsman: I would not want any of you on the committee to be left with the impression...and I alluded to it briefly in the text, and the minister certainly highlighted it in his opening comments. Members of the Canadian Forces are very much cognizant of the problems that everybody has within the country.
It's human nature to want to have as much as you can have, but the members of the Canadian Forces, by and large, are not out there asking to receive more money, more benefits, more consideration simply because they're in the Canadian Forces. What you'll find, though, is that they're not sure...this is where this committee is very useful, not only to them, but to those of us who are responsible for applying personnel policies and trying to hit that fine balance between what is too much and what is too little.
After a five-year wage freeze, whether they're Canadian Forces members or other Canadians, when they hear that industry has moved ahead as we come out of the recession they're not sure whether or not in all cases they are being treated fairly. The sense they have is that they're not, because they haven't seen a pay raise for five years, but they don't necessarily have a good foundation for that. They're not asking for more than what is fair in what treats us...what we referred to a couple of times as the military factor. What is the difference between this and a suit and how is that taken into account in that package of compensation benefits, facilities, and the way we treat the people? That's really the foundation.
Whether or not it has to be articulated per se by the government is up to the government and up to this committee to decide. As I said, and I'm not trying to be evasive here, the fact that this committee has been invited to view these subjects, to consider these subjects, and the fact that you will be going around the country and talking to these people is in and of itself a very positive signal. It doesn't put money in people's pockets, but it is a very positive signal.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Bertrand.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Pontiac - Gatineau - Labelle, Lib.): Madame Chair, you can be sure that there will be no trace of partisanship in my questions.
You mentioned in your presentation that you were creating a disability information advisory cell at NDHQ. Is such a service not already offered by the Department of Veterans Affairs? Is this not an example of overlap?
LGen Kinsman: There is no doubt that the services are being well delivered. Members of the Royal Canadian Legion are also trying to help our veterans. Our organization also has people working on a daily basis in this area.
What we are trying to do is create a central point for those people with questions, particularly leaders or friends who see that someone needs assistance and may not be able to provide the answers themselves. We want to increase the ability of our people to become aware of what is available and where you have to go to obtain services which we do not provide directly. Am I explaining this clearly?
Mr. Robert Bertrand: Yes, I understand that very well, Lieutenant-General.
[English]
The Chair: We're getting tight. We'd better...
.1020
I thank you, General. I'm sorry we have to truncate this. I'm always cutting people off or cutting them short, but I thank you very much for your participation. It may well be that after our travels we may want to speak with you again.
LGen Kinsman: We'd be more than happy to do it. Thank you.
The Chair: The meeting is adjourned.