NDVA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES ANCIENS COMBATTANTS

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

• 1536

Thursday, November 8, 2001

[English]

The Chair (Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.)): I'd like to call to order this meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs.

We are very pleased to welcome a number of witnesses today from the forces. We have Lieutenant-General Christian Couture, Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources Military; Brigadier-General Terry Hearn, Director General, Military Human Resource Policy and Planning; and Colonel Scott Cameron, Surgeon General.

Gentlemen, we have a limited time today and are looking forward to getting your comments, so please proceed.

I understand Mr. Stoffer has a point of order. Mr. Stoffer.

Mr. Peter Stoffer (Sackville—Musquodoboit Valley—Eastern Shore, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

The other day we heard, from the Defence Industry Association, Colonel O'Donnell, I believe, and I just wanted to put it on the record that Mr. O'Donnell is also a lobbyist for Eurocopter. His comments over the split procurement process or the single procurement process regarding the Sea King replacements should be taken in that context—just for the record.

The Chair: I'm not sure that's a point of order, Mr. Stoffer.

A voice: It's a point of debate.

The Chair: It is, I think, more clearly a point of debate.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Okay.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit, do you have something to add to this?

Mr. Leon Benoit (Lakeland, Canadian Alliance): No, I was just going to make it clear that the split procurement issue, in terms of purchase and replacement for the Sea King—

The Chair: Well, with respect—

Mr. Leon Benoit: —is a key issue, so it's important to note that. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: With respect, I think we want to hear from our witnesses as soon as possible. That, too, is not a point of order.

General Couture, you have the floor.

[Translation]

LGen Christian Couture (Assistant Deputy Minister, Human Resources, Military, National Defence): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee on the resource that I consider the most important in the Canadian Forces, that is to say, the men and women who serve. I am the Assistant Deputy Minister of Human Resources Military

[English]

and my business is people. I've been a soldier all my adult life. I have commanded troops at every level and served in operations at every commissioned rank from lieutenant to brigadier-general. Many of the memories I hold most dear are those involving soldiers with whom I have served—the risks we have shared, the things they have done to help others, the pride their families take in them, and the devotion and commitment they give to the armed forces and to this wonderful country of ours.

We all owe them a great deal, monsieur le président, and I have the honour to lead the team that looks after them. I say this advisedly, for that is exactly how we have shaped the vision that guides my group's activities: look after our people, invest in them, and give them confidence in the future—three powerful thoughts, which we have taken to heart. I'll use them as the basis of my brief remarks this afternoon.

Let me first introduce the members of my team: as you already mentioned, General Hearn, who is the head of my personnel policy division; and Colonel Scott Cameron, who is the Surgeon General.

[Translation]

By coincidence we all wear the army uniform, but I assure you that this group and this team represent all three services, and we move ahead in all our activities in close consultation with the Services. We are just a small part of much a larger team that deals with a multitude of personnel issues: policies, compensation and benefits, health care, recruiting and retention, education, and training and professional development.

But I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen that this commitment to our people, and this dedication to look after them extends throughout the entire leadership of the Department of National Defence, which last year affirmed people as its top priority, down through the many levels of the environmental staffs and my Group. It is a privilege to work with such professionals.

[English]

Let me start with a few words on looking after our people. I will be frank with you and say candidly that the last decade has been difficult. You will all know that the downsizing and other difficult steps we undertook at National Defence played a role in helping the essential work on balancing the budget: we cut back on health care; military pay was frozen, along with that of the public service; we slowed the recruiting down to a trickle; and we took a range of other measures, all of which were necessary at the time. Add to these a strong national economy for part of the decade and a variety of other factors and I will simply say this was not an ideal time for encouraging people to either join the forces or remain in the forces.

• 1540

Nevertheless, a great many of our people did stay, and they did so for a variety of reasons, among them their commitment to their country but also their faith that their leaders would look after them—and with your help we're doing so.

In looking back, the October 1998 quality of life report published by your committee addressed 89 important recommendations. Thus far, we have addressed 63 of these recommendations, including the improvement of pay and benefits. Work is progressing on the remaining recommendations, which include the development of a comprehensive accommodation strategy for single and married service personnel, the re-engineering of our system of career management and personnel transfers, and developing a comprehensive compensation strategy.

This committee has played a key role in this “get well” effort, and on behalf of the men and women of the Canadian Forces, I would like to thank you very much.

Looking after our people, however, does not stop here. We must continue to maximize support for our people while at the same time optimizing our support for the operational readiness of the Canadian Forces. In our efforts to look after our people, we will focus on three themes: recruiting, retention, and health care.

Looking after our people really begins with recruiting. As a fighting force we first and foremost rely upon each other to achieve whatever the mission is before us. As such, we need to look after ourselves by keeping our team up to strength. Since 1991, the total strength of the Canadian Forces has dropped from 86,000 to around 59,000 today, and to restore the strength of the Canadian Forces to the authorized level of 60,000 we have implemented a plan to attract, process, and train an expanded intake of officers and non-commissioned members.

The major elements of the campaign are a three to four year recruiting campaign to enrol approximately 7,000 regular force members and 3,000 reservists per year; a dramatically enhanced advertisement campaign—in fact we have more than doubled the advertising budget; an increase in the number of recruiting personnel involved in attraction; and a refined recruiting process to reduce bottlenecks and long delays. We looked at 22 processes. Some we changed, and some we could not change, such as security checks and medical examinations.

We have developed partnerships with educational institutes to establish a recruiting presence and to recognize and accredit civilian competencies and education. These include re-establishing our presence at job fairs, schools, and even universities like Laval University in Quebec, where we have opened a five-day-a-week, nine-to-five liaison office right on the campus. We have expanded also our recruit training capacity, with recruit training occurring at several bases, including St. Jean, Gagetown, Esquimalt, and Halifax. The campaign has proven to be highly successful thus far for both the regular and the reserve forces.

But the campaign is not without its problems. We are encountering shortages in recruitment of several technical occupations, for both officers and non-commissioned members. Thus we have established or are in the process of establishing several monetary incentive programs to attract more recruits with the special skills we need in these technical occupations.

Basic recruit training is operating at or near capacity even with the extra recruit training centres established; however, school capacity on completion of training has proven to be a bit of a problem. The sudden surge of recruits has created some challenges, particularly at the specialized training school we have in Borden, where some personnel have to wait for further training. But rather than have them languish and wait, we have vigorously addressed this, either by having them undertake other useful training or through completion of on-the-job training in planned career fields to provide them an opportunity to learn, to work, and to be part of the force.

Our success in looking after our people is clearly shown in our retention. Integral to any retention strategy is understanding why people leave. To obtain the answers, survey data collected on departing members were analysed. The conclusion we came to was that retention is affected by a multitude of issues, such as job satisfaction, time away from families, career prospects, pride in the unit in the Canadian Forces, and a sense that what they do is valued by their country.

• 1545

Although retention of our personnel is also affected by the economy—in fact, traditionally a bad economy is good for CF recruiting and retention—it has become clear that retaining our people involves an effective balance of compensation and benefits, career opportunities, and a secure work environment that allows members to realize a positive quality of life for themselves and their families. The goal is to make a career with the Canadian Forces at least as attractive as other career options. This will ensure that we can sustain a motivated, qualified, and healthy membership to meet the operational demands of the force.

As such, we are doing many things in this area, beginning with the removal of some deterrents at the front door. The Canadian Forces is revising its terms of service, which is the employment contract, to offer more flexible options. We are also offering a wider range of entry choices and have increased the retirement age. We are redesigning the system of military occupational structures to provide the flexibility and range of career possibilities needed to appeal to the interests of a broad segment of the Canadian population. We are modernizing employment policies to ensure fairness and equity within the regular and the reserve force components.

The establishment of good working conditions has much to do with eliminating conflict and inequity within the work environment. Measures that have been taken in this regard include a new harassment policy covering prevention and resolution. As well, we have looked at changes in the area of employment equity and the accommodation of spiritual practices, all issues that reflect a spirit of fairness and equity.

Finally, we have made tremendous progress in the area of compensation and benefits, including pay improvements between April 1999 and April 2001 for both officers and non-commissioned members. We have also created a cost of living allowance. We have improved relocation benefits, including five days of leave at each end, and we now provide compassionate travel assistance for members and their families who must travel due to death or illness of relatives.

Looking after our people is not just about compensation and benefits, of course. We need to continue our retention efforts, including obtaining better data on attrition. We are conducting analysis of why people join, but we also have instituted surveys on why they leave, and we have initiated a study to look at the impact of multiple deployments on people and their families.

Overall, I am pleased to report that we seem to be making progress. Attrition is down this year. Historically we lose about 8% per year. In a force of 60,000, that's about 4,800 people. So far this year, that is somewhat lower, which is very encouraging.

[Translation]

In a profession that may require its members to go in harm's way, the risk of injury or illness is great. To maintain morale in the Canadian Forces, it is essential that adequate medical and health services be available at home and abroad. The health and well-being of CF members is a prime concern of the leadership of the CF, and one of the my most important areas of responsibility.

[English]

Reviews of the Canadian Forces health system have identified a need to reform and improve confidence in health services. Over the past several years, the Canadian Forces has made improvement of its health services a major priority, and the latest project, called RX 2000, represents our most ambitious effort to date, encompassing numerous initiatives. Instituting positive, effective change within a health care system is a major undertaking, but significant progress is being made. I will mention a few of the more significant areas where we are achieving success.

On September 1 we launched the Force Health Protection Initiative, designed to prevent illness and injury and promote health and wellness in the Canadian Forces. This initiative includes creation of a staff directorate, health promotion team, and three rapidly deployable health hazard assessment teams trained and equipped to perform environmental assessments of air, water and soil quality and to provide a thorough health risk assessment.

We have also introduced a Canadian Forces case management program for a better follow-up on complex medical cases and to assist members with their health care needs as they transition to the civilian life, particularly those who become clients of Veterans Affairs Canada. With respect to Veterans Affairs Canada, we have established liaison positions to improve communication and understanding between the two groups.

• 1550

We are strengthening mental health care at home and overseas with our national network of mental health services.

We are facing similar health care challenges to those faced by groups everywhere, but we are actively pursuing initiatives to develop a quality, affordable health care system, whether on base or deployed on operation, so we can look after our people.

Turning to my second theme, investing in them, the effectiveness of the Canadian Forces depends largely upon the individual and collective knowledge and skills of our members. To invest in them, the Canadian Forces devotes considerable resources to training and professional development. To strengthen our commitment, we are developing a comprehensive human resources strategy that focuses on both near-term and long-term goals. This commitment is supported by a long-term human resources funding plan whereby we have knitted together over 130 different project initiatives into a consolidated HR investment strategy.

Additionally, within the human resources group, we are investing in the development of our own people through numerous initiatives, including ensuring that persons who work within the human resources group have the tools that they need with new courses, handbooks, and accredited certification.

Some other initiatives we are focusing on include the recent launch of Officership 2020, which is our strategy for officers' professional development, and a similar professional development program for non-commissioned members.

The creation of a Canadian defence academy to act as a centre of excellence to oversee the education of both officers and non-commissioned members will also play a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining linkages to other institutes of professional military and higher learning.

Another initiative is to improve the quality of and access to education by revising and updating the curriculum at the Royal Military College in Kingston and the Canadian Forces College in Toronto, and through the creation of a defence learning network that capitalizes upon advances in information technology to function as a distance learning platform.

By investing in our people with training and development, we not only develop and maintain them, but we hope that in return they will invest in us by staying.

Lastly, turning to my third point, giving them confidence in the future, we continue to work on looking after and investing in our people as the best means to give them confidence in the future. But frankly, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen, just being here today before the committee helps give our people confidence. Since the members of this committee played such an essential role in helping the members of the Canadian Forces and their families in rebuilding their quality of life, they know that you have their best interests at heart.

We are working hard to show them that their leadership cares, and we are striving to get this message out through an effective communications program. We need to be open to change and listen to recommendations, both from within and outside the department, to keep our vision alive, and we're doing that.

In conclusion, any study on operational readiness may not solely focus on people, but for me, it is people. Only by looking after them, investing in them, and giving them confidence in the future can the Canadian Forces remain an operationally ready force. Certainly we have challenges of manning and funding, but as you can see, we are identifying the challenges that lay ahead, we know what we have to do, and we have a plan to do it.

There you have it, Mr. Chairman. We are serious about this, and we are moving ahead in a very logical and comprehensive way. I have been pleased to share with you a few thoughts on how we will look after our people, how we are investing in them, and with your help, giving them confidence in the future.

[Translation]

I will stop here, Mr. Chairman. I thank you very much for the attention of all the members of the committee and am prepared to respond to any questions that you might have.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, General. We appreciate your comments, and on behalf of the committee, especially your comments with respect to the role that the committee has played in the past in terms of the quality of life issues that have faced members of the forces.

We have some members who are interested in throwing a few questions at you. We'll start with Mr. Benoit, for seven minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, gentlemen. I have some questions for you, but Mr. Stoffer apparently has to leave right away, and he asked if he could ask a couple of questions first. Would the committee be willing to accommodate him? I certainly will.

• 1555

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Stoffer, you have the floor.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to ask some questions.

Sir, I have just one question. Of course this committee has heard testimony from people suffering from the Gulf War syndrome or the effects of depleted uranium. We've heard both from a witness from the military and also a witness from the civilian side that you give conflicting information on the effects of, for example, depleted uranium.

I'm wondering if you can tell me what the update is in terms of people who suffer from psychological concerns when they return from a tour overseas and what the military is doing to assist them and, most importantly, their families as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

LGen Christian Couture: Thanks for the question.

As you know, there are ample studies on depleted uranium, and as I am not a scientist, I will not comment on those studies. But from the point of view of caring for people, as you know, we have been offering since I think February 2000 the possibility for people who have any worries about their health, people who are coming back from a deployed operation, whether it's related to depleted uranium or any other case, to come forward and to be tested and to receive treatment.

For the DU, these tests have been happening since February 2000, and anybody who has those concerns can come forward and we will test them. In fact, so far I think we have tested over a hundred people and none of the results of the tests has proven conclusive.

In any future operation, if people come back with some concerns, they can come forward and they will be tested.

Mr. Peter Stoffer: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, thank you, gentlemen, for being here this afternoon.

I have some questions, starting with just the most basic, and that's in terms of numbers. Surprisingly, it's been so difficult to get these numbers. So I really am glad to have you here today, General, because you should be just the person.

There have been a lot of numbers thrown around by myself, by the minister, by lots of people as to how many we actually have in our military. I think one of the reasons for the discrepancy of numbers is that one is total numbers, one is effective force strength. But also I think some of those numbers for some reason just aren't very readily available.

Could you start by giving me those numbers, please? You said the total force numbers 58,000. What about effective force strength right now, is 53,000 the correct number on that?

LGen Christian Couture: The total of people in uniform in the regular forces numbers today over 59,000. In fact, it's 59,100 and something, and the trained effective strength—the people who are in forward units manning ships, squadrons, battalions, regiments, and so on—is 52,500 plus or minus a few.

But you must realize, sir, that these numbers fluctuate every day with the people who are coming in and people who are leaving the forces. The report that I am given is a monthly report providing me with the numbers. The numbers that I just quoted to you are from last week.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Okay, I appreciate that.

Now, in terms of recruitment, quite often you'll hear people talking about numbers and how we're going to get this effective force strength up by recruiting. Isn't it a fact that if there's a heavy rate of recruitment, you actually could require more people who would be in the effective force strength to get into training recruits? So the effective force strength could actually be reduced on a temporary basis, as this larger number of recruits is being trained. And of course the recruits themselves aren't added to the effective force strength for some time. Is that correct? Just talk about that a bit and what kind of timeframe that takes—that type of thing.

LGen Christian Couture: Let me address your first point first. Yes, it's true that if we take away from the units the non-commissioned members required to do the training, it could affect them. In fact, we are being assisted by the three environments on this and have made a balanced choice. They have reinforced my schools and my training establishments and also the recruiting organization, so that we could have that power to intake, but not to the point that it would be detrimental to the forces at this point in time.

• 1600

Now, if we go out and hire more people, recruit more people, and train more people, then of course you're right, you will have to go into the units and get some.... But we're not doing that at this point in time. We've projected that with the number of people we can recruit and train and with the assistance of what I have in my group right now, we can cope with it.

You said that those we recruit are not readily available. Yes, you're right. It could take up to a maximum of 18 months to train the non-commissioned members, but it is as short as three months for basic infantry. I would say three to six months—yes, six months for basic infantry—to 18 months for a technician. When we talk about officers, it could be as long as five to seven years, depending on the MOC they are in.

As you know, attrition is something that happens every year. People reach the end of their career or the end of their contract and they wish to leave. Not only do we need to replace those people, but we need to recruit a little more than that, so that we can re-establish the strength at 60,000, which is the authorized level at the moment.

Mr. Leon Benoit: You mentioned later in your report that because of the way recruiting is going now—and I hope I'm representing this fairly—some of the people being recruited, instead of getting into the normal military training, are being sent off to get training in their areas of expertise and their technical area, and so forth. When do they become officially a part of the effective force strength numbers?

LGen Christian Couture: When they are fully trained to the occupation to which they belong. The reason we're doing this is we have a certain capacity in our technical school and specialized school in Borden. In order not to deprive front-line units of too many senior non-commissioned members as instructors, we have programmed the training throughout the year. Sometimes we're a victim of our own success in recruiting a certain type of employee or member. The course capacity is at maximum for a period of time, and that varies upon the numbers. So in the meantime, instead of leaving those people sitting doing nothing in Borden, we send them to a unit where they will do on-the-job training or maybe be trained as drivers or for any other type of job. They will have a chance to see first-hand their future category of employment. Once the course is ready, then they go back to Borden. They will follow their training and then be posted back to that unit. Then they will be fully employable.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit. I'm sure there's going to be lots of time for many questions here.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon, you have seven minutes.

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu—Nicolet—Bécancour, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, and thank you for appearing before us today.

I would like to come back to one point. What is the approximate percentage of francophones in the Armed Forces?

LGen Christian Couture: I think the figure is 27%.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Fine, thank you.

There has been quite a problem regarding relations of francophones within the army or their lifestyle. Commandant Roméo Dallaire came to meet with our committee in 1998. He recognized that despite the fact that the Official Languages Act had been in place since 1968 or 1969, the Armed Forces had not taken certain parts of it into account. He mentioned the example of personnel transfers from a military base in Quebec or New Brunswick to a miliary base in Ontario or elsewhere. Francophone members of the military might have to live in an entirely English-speaking context within the Armed Forces. The opposite happened in the case of anglophones as well. However, it was particular to francophones. The problem was that a family situation was completely different when the family was transferred to a different language community. The families found themselves abandoned.

Lieutenant-General Dallaire also told us that the armed forces had studied this problem for five or six months and that a committee had been established to study it. The forces would like to be able to support both members of the military and their families when they are transferred to a different community and where the family in particular can not get services, because they can not speak the language spoken in the region and the base leaders are not bilingual. Can you reassure me that there have been some improvements in this regard?

• 1605

LGen Christian Couture: Certainly, Mr. Plamondon: The committee actually completed its work some time ago. Since I was not a member of the committee myself, I have no personal knowledge of it. However, I can tell you that since about 1999 or 2000, we have established second language training programs for families arriving in a community in which they do not speak the language. The problem occurs not only with francophones who move to an anglophone community, but also for anglophones who move to a francophone community, and who also feel alienated. We had to try to deal with this problem, and that is why we established second language training programs for these individuals.

There was another problem that also required our attention: spouses of the armed forces' member who had to find a job in a new region. With the help of our network of Family Resource Centres, with which I am sure you are familiar, we therefore established an employment assistance group for the spouses of our members. This program has now been operating for 18 months, I believe, and it is very popular.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I heard that 1,500 people had enrolled in it.

LGen Christian Couture: You mean that 1,500 candidates had applied for a second language training.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: No, that is not what I mean. I found an article written by Aline Dubois, which states:

During the 1999-2000 fiscal year, 1,500 members of the CF or their families, who were experiencing problems, took advantage of the Canadian Forces Member Assistance Program (CFMAP). The figures have grown steadily since that time.

LGen Christian Couture: You are referring to a completely different program, which has nothing to do with language.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I know it is not the second language training program, but you went from a second language training program to help people become bilingual to a program to help military spouses find jobs. You were talking about support programs, and you mentioned an existing program. I thought you were referring to this particular program. It seemed to be—

LGen Christian Couture: I was definitely not referring to that program. I was speaking rather about existing second language training programs, family support programs and the job-finding assistance program.

The program you just referred to was established in 1998. It provides assistance to members of the CF. It is confidential and offered in co-operation with Health Canada. It allows our people who are reluctant to seek assistance by going through a military chain of command, to get some confidential help if they are having problems related to their work, marriage, substance abuse, or mental or psychological health. The only information I receive once a year is the amount of the bill that I have to pay at the end of the year.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Does the number of people in the CF requiring this type of support—1,500—seem high to you?

LGen Christian Couture: One person is one too many, sir. It is generally recognized by everyone, I believe, that military life is very stressful. When we consider the type of work these people perform, the type of situation they face when they return home, and the fact that they have problems in their personal lives as well... Our members face problems everyday.

You ask me whether I think the number is high. Yes, it is high. Is it too high? I cannot answer that. However, the most important thing to us is to be able to offer these people assistance. That is much more important than knowing how many people turn to the assistance program.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Do I still have some time left, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: You have 40 seconds, Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I prefer to wait for the second round, in that case.

The Chair: Fine. Thank you.

[English]

Colleen Beaumier. Ms. Beaumier, you have seven minutes.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West—Mississauga, Lib.): Thank you.

I think I'd like to follow along on some of those lines. One of my concerns has been the fact that we've sent our peacekeepers out into missions that soldiers in the past have not had to endure and to understand. I think the circumstances under which most of our soldiers and our UN peacekeepers work are beyond the comprehension, especially in Bosnia, of most sane-minded people in Canada or in the western world.

• 1610

I'm wondering, do you have a certain number of missions you would send a soldier on? When they come back damaged to the point where they cannot continue in the military, what kind of support do you have for them for training and reintegration into society? I'm under the impression the psychological or psychiatric support could be much better. And what kind of training do you have for those who perhaps originally got into the armed services because they weren't really academics and school wasn't for them?

LGen Christian Couture: I missed the last part of your question.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: What kind of training for the transition from the military into the private sector would you have, especially for those who come in not as well educated as others? That's my first question.

LGen Christian Couture: Since the early nineties, peacekeeping missions have changed dramatically from the way they were before then. When people came back from those missions, they came back with some problems we had never anticipated at that point in time, so we were advancing with them, we were growing with them. I remember in 1993, when we had our first people coming back from Bosnia, PTSD, post traumatic stress disorder, was something we had never heard about before, although we felt at the time it was something.

As we care about people—and this is a commitment we have not only to the members but also to their families—we started looking at that very seriously, because of the number of missions and the new type of situation they were faced with. We have developed a treatment for it. First of all, we do have the psychiatric and the psychological support within the military, and the ones we don't have, we can get on the civilian market. One of the problems with the civilian physicians is they're not very aware of what the military people would be faced with or what they have faced, so they have to learn as well.

We have created a network of operational psychological trauma and stress support across the country. We have five clinics. We have created, with the assistance of veterans affairs, a centre to give direct support to people who come back with casualties, both physical and mental. While the people are away, we have family support—we do care about family support as well—through our military family resource network. They can provide psychological counselling, and they have other programs that will help them pass through a difficult time when the spouse is away.

Now, for the last part of your question, when people come back with some illness, they are treated by our military physicians or by civilian physicians who work for us, and if they still face medical employment limitations and we have no choice but to release them back into civilian life, we have a transition program, which we run in collaboration with Veterans Affairs Canada. It allows people to start, up to six months before their release date, training or school upgrading. They can carry this on for two years after being released, so they can have a decent living back in civilian life.

At the same time they do that, if they need medical treatment, as long as they are in uniform they are within the Canadian Forces health system. As soon as they transfer to civilian life, if they have what we call a pensionable condition, then veterans affairs looks after then.

Ms. Colleen Beaumier: Thank you.

• 1615

Mr. Chair, I was on foreign affairs before, and I would like to publicly state that we employ lots of people in this government for our foreign service, and we have no finer ambassadors in this country than our soldiers. I used to meet with foreign dignitaries, and our reputation has been built on our peacekeepers. I hope we are going to take very good care of them.

LGen Christian Couture: Thank you very much, Madam. I share your remarks. Thanks.

The Chair: Mrs. Beaumier, thank you very much. I would like to associate myself with your comments as well. I think they're very apropos.

Monsieur Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I would like to talk to you about a problem that some members of the military have mentioned to me. I would also like to hear what you think about National Defence's decision to increase the mandatory retirement age from 55 to 60.

There seem to be two schools of thought in the armed forces on this matter. Some have told me that they aspired to become senior officers one day, but that the fact that the mandatory retirement age was 60 caused them to leave the army and pursue their careers elsewhere. They decided that it would take too long for them to get an interesting position. Some young members of the military told me that. Older members think that the change will give them enough time to do what they want and use the experience they have.

So there are two schools of thought, but I am rather skeptical about this. We are trying to encourage people to make a career in the army, but I think increasing the retirement age discourages young people from enrolling. What do you think? I am not sure about this. These are some thoughts I heard expressed by my friends in the military.

LGen Christian Couture: I will try to alleviate your skepticism, Mr. Plamondon. I think you are right when you say there are two schools of thought on this. That was the case when we decided to recommend increasing the retirement age to 60. This is not merely an idea that someone had when they got out of bed one morning.

When considering the personnel requirements of the Canadian Forces, both in terms of numbers, qualifications, capabilities, and so on, we do not look at just the present, we look far into the future as well.

When we look at the demographic projections of the Canadian population, we see that there is a constant drop in the 17 to 25 age group. These statistics show that in ten years there will be more people over 60 than under 20.

The other factor is that today, young people remain in school longer than I did when I enrolled 30 years ago. Consequently, they are over 20 when they come to the Canadian Forces. Today the average recruit's age is over 20, whereas it was 17, 18 or 19, 30 years ago.

Next, we look at the time required to train them to operate the sophisticated equipment we have. We also look at the health of these individuals and the outlook for the future. People still have contributions to make after age 55.

In addition, individuals who are around 23, 24 or 25 when they join the forces for a career, and subsequently a well-deserved retirement, must have enough time to accumulate a decent pension. As you know, the maximum is 35 years of service, and the maximum pension is 70% of a person's salary.

The reason why the retirement age was increased to 60 are purely demographic in nature, but the decision was made on the basis of a serious analysis of the situation. What do we do with people who are now in the service and who have this option? At the moment, all those who are enrolled in or serving in the Canadian Armed Forces are serving under a very specific term of service. We call this an employment contract, which takes the member to 20 years of service or 35 years of service. The maximum age is 55. If individuals have 35 years of service and want to leave the forces, they may do so if they have done their time. If individuals are 55 and want to keep working, and if they are needed, they can stay in the forces if they meet the medical and physical requirements.

• 1620

It is not automatic. Everyone is entitled to apply, but operational requirements determine that we keep certain individuals and not others.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. I have one final question.

LGen Christian Couture: I would like to add something to this.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes.

LGen Christian Couture: You were saying that some individuals would not be promoted because of this. At the moment, our statistics show that less than 0.1% of individuals with 35 years of service and the maximum pension stay on. Our studies show that the impact on the pension is virtually negligible.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Non-existent.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

[English]

Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Andy Savoy (Tobique—Mactaquac, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Although I've had a short career in the House of Commons, less than a year, I've never been so moved as yesterday when Smokey Smith was presented as the last surviving Victoria Cross recipient. I think there's a new-found pride across Canada in our Canadian Forces, and certainly I join my colleague in applauding the fighting men and women of this country. I think you're doing a wonderful job in this crisis and you certainly have my support wholeheartedly.

Congratulations today on your initiatives to recruit and retain members, soldiers. I think you've put a good plan in front of us, and your commitment to this goal is very evident.

I have a couple of quick questions.

You mentioned you had a retention initiative. You talked about historically losing about 8% per year in a force of 60,000. You said so far in 2001 this is somewhat lower and it's encouraging. Do you have any pro-rated figures for 2001 that would give us the estimates for 2001?

LGen Christian Couture: For the attrition rate?

Mr. Andy Savoy: No, but a pro-rated figure. If we've lost this many to date in 2001, what's the approximate number we will lose in the full year?

LGen Christian Couture: Yes. I think I have those numbers. An exact number would be—

Mr. Andy Savoy: What about a percentage?

LGen Christian Couture: Right now, in terms of a percentage I think it's about 6.5%.

Mr. Andy Savoy: So you're down 1.5%.

LGen Christian Couture: Yes.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay.

Second, in identifying your health and wellness initiatives you talked about a new health hazard assessment team who perform environmental assessments of air, water, and soil quality. Have you done specific projects to date, and is it nationally or internationally based, or a combination of both?

LGen Christian Couture: I'll ask the Surgeon General, but just before he speaks, I can tell you we plan to have three teams. We have one that will be established this year. The final program will be completed in 2003, and that will be a team, based in Canada, that will be trained and equipped to be deployed in advance, during, or after an operation to do assessments from a health protection point of view.

To determine what kind of protection we need to provide our people, we have to send them in advance with the advance party team, or the reconnaissance team, if we have to, during the mission to do some sampling if we have concerns, and then after the mission so we have some baseline comparisons.

Colonel Scott Cameron (Surgeon General, Department of National Defence): I don't have too much to add to that. While the teams are a new development, and the training and development of the team concept is new, the concept of doing these types of assessments is not new. We have been doing them. We've sent teams that look very much like the teams we are constituting to do assessments in the last several years, and that is an international thing, obviously.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Okay. I know that 1 CEU in Moncton is an international group that does environmental assessments, and they've done work in Bosnia and the Golan Heights. Would this be in addition to this team, or is it part of your...?

LGen Christian Couture: No. The three teams I talked about in my health protection initiative are over and above what the 1 CEU can do.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Fair enough.

Finally, in addition to looking at the assessment, of course, we look at prevention, preventing health situations. Do you have an asbestos abatement program, where you map out asbestos, you look at a facility, you identify asbestos, and you put together a program to remove it? Is there a Canadian Forces asbestos abatement program, and how is that coming?

LGen Christian Couture: That's outside of human resources, but it has to do with health, so I keep abreast of what's going on in it.

I cannot discuss the details of the program, but I know there was a program, and wherever there was asbestos, it was removed. Do we still have asbestos left in some of the buildings? I don't know.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Do you have any idea where?

LGen Christian Couture: I don't know that. I would suggest you ask the question to the assistant deputy minister for infrastructure and environment whenever he appears in front of your group.

• 1625

From a health problem statistic, do you have anything?

Col Scott Cameron: I'm not exactly sure of your question, but the idea of health surveillance and making sure that the appropriate measures are in place when asbestos is being worked with and removed is not of course a new one to occupational health. We have always had preventive medicine personnel for personnel in the Canadian military who were involved when those materials were implicated, being removed from buildings and what have you.

Mr. Andy Savoy: Thank you very much, and keep up the wonderful work.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Savoy.

Mr. Benoit, you have five minutes.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have some follow-up questions on recruitment, General, and I'll get to you in a minute, but I do want to ask just one question to Colonel Cameron.

Colonel Cameron, because of your position, I think you would know the answer to this. It's regarding the Sharpe report and when that may be made public. The Sharpe report is being done out of the office of the ombudsman by General Sharpe. I met with him in the summer, and at that time it sounded as if that report would be released very soon. The report stemmed from a visit by Paula Richmond, the mother of Corporal McEachern, who came down to Ottawa. I invited her to a press conference, and someone from the ombudsman's office came. They realized there's a serious problem regarding post-traumatic stress disorder, and that while things may be dealt with better now than they were two years ago, there are still lots of problems. I'm just wondering if you're aware of the status of that report. Have you seen that report, and have you any idea when it may be made public?

Col Scott Cameron: I'm not aware of the status of the report. We have been given an advanced presentation, not really a briefing, by one of the members of General Sharpe's team. I certainly wouldn't comment on what's in the report until it is released, and I don't know what the release date is.

With respect to PTSD in military members, really, the prime purpose of a military medical service is to be attuned to the specific health problems of the military. PTSD is clearly one of the most significant health problems our members face. As you point out, we have taken significant steps in the last couple of years to improve our ability to look after people suffering from those types of problems. We continue to try to improve that. There's nobody in North America today who has the answer for PTSD. Because of the special risks they face, our commitment and our goal are to stay at the forefront in what we can offer our Canadian Forces members.

As General Couture mentioned, we have established the five centres across Canada specifically to look at the types of problems that arise from military operations. We are in the process of improving in particular the mental health services we offer to our military people, and we've had the full support of the military leadership in doing that. More specifically, next year we'll be doing a study looking at the actual levels of various types of mental health problems amongst our Canadian Forces personnel, and that will give us a basis to look at where we need to put future resources.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Colonel Cameron. I'll check with the ombudsman on that and see when it's coming.

Now, General, going back to numbers, you've said that we have about 52,500 effective force members right now. In terms of recruits I want to follow up on that. How long would it normally take a recruit...? I know it varies for positions, and you've said that. But I want to get a picture, starting with the army and people we would be sending over to missions in the Balkans, for example, of how long it takes people with different responsibilities from the time they're first recruited until the time they're actually ready to serve in the Balkans. Could you give us a range of people, maybe pick on two or three?

LGen Christian Couture: Let's start with the infantry. The basic recruit training for everyone, by the way, sir, is three months, ten and a half weeks. After they've completed that training, assuming that there's no delay between the next level of training for the qualification, an infantry soldier will go to basic infantry training in one of the schools we have in the army. That training takes three months, and after that the soldier is ready to be deployed because he's a fully qualified, basic infantry soldier. It's relatively the same thing for the armoured corps.

• 1630

Now, if we go into a technical trade—let's take mechanics, a vehicle technician, someone who fixes our equipment, our vehicles—there are three months of basic training and then a year in Borden in the technical school, so it could be 15 months and sometimes up to 18 months for this person.

If we take somebody from the medical world, let's take the basic medical assistant. I'm not talking about the doctors; you know how long that takes. A non-commissioned medical assistant also takes about 15 months from the date of enrolment or from the first day of basic training. That's the army. The navy....

Mr. Leon Benoit: If we could, let's deal with the army first.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Mr. Benoit, your time has expired. You're over your time.

Mr. Wood, five minutes.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, I need some clarification here. As you know, yesterday we issued a report on what we would like to see done in the budget. It was an interim report. I'm kind of confused as well about what constitutes “special forces”. I guess I'm looking for your definition, based on your knowledge, in your recruitment, in your screening, or whatever. We've asked to increase the JTF2 by 1,000 people. What is your definition of “special forces”? There are people at this table who think that the Canadian Airborne Regiment was a special force. I'd just like to know what your definition is. What was the Airborne, and what is your definition of “special forces”?

LGen Christian Couture: First of all, I know that you issued a report yesterday, but I haven't had a chance to read it. The only thing I know about your report is what I read in the paper this morning. It's going in a good direction, from my personal perspective anyway.

Now, what are “special forces”? A special force is a military organization that has a very highly specialized skill and that will perform a very specific duty nobody else but they can do. We need to maintain this kind of force at a very high level of training and readiness.

You ask, was the Airborne Regiment a special force? My definition of an airborne force is a light infantry organization that is delivered by parachute. Once they are on the ground, it's a light infantry organization, nothing more than that. To be able to jump out of an airplane they have to have special qualities and special skills, but otherwise it's a light infantry unit and nothing more than that.

Mr. Bob Wood: So there's no comparison between the JTF2 and the Airborne?

LGen Christian Couture: I don't know the JTF2 that well. As you know, it does what it's trained for, but I'm sorry, that's classified information.

Mr. Bob Wood: I know it's classified, but you are—

LGen Christian Couture: You're asking if I know what the Airborne Regiment was?

Mr. Bob Wood: Yes.

LGen. Christian Couture: I did not consider the Airborne Regiment to be a special force. I personally consider that the Airborne Regiment was a light infantry unit that would arrive on the battlefield with a special delivery means called a parachute.

Mr. Bob Wood: Good. Thank you.

I just have one other question, and I know you've touched on some of this before. I want to thank you for your comments on the quality of life, because there are a few of us who are still hanging in here. I notice that the good doctor is still here too, and it's nice to see him here because he has played a significant role in what the quality of life is all about.

You said your latest project is RX 2000, which represents our most ambitious efforts to date encompassing numerous initiatives. You've listed some of them. Could you list some of the others you're into and explain how it's helping out our Canadian forces?

LGen Christian Couture: I'll ask the Surgeon General to address the medical aspect. I'll address policy, command and control, and infrastructure.

• 1635

We have lots of programs. We want to recapitalize all our clinic organizations; there are clinics across the country. We want to have a command and control structure that will give our director general, health safety, total control of the delivery of health care across the country. Also, the management of the delivery of health care will be improved by taking the best practices we can get from outside the military world. For the health care system we have initiatives to improve the delivery, to improve the continuity of care, and so on.

Scott, the floor is yours.

Mr. Bob Wood: Doctor, you're on.

Col Scott Cameron: I'm a physician, and with all due respect to the general, I don't really care about the command and control and infrastructure.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

LGen Christian Couture: At least he's honest.

Col Scott Cameron: This is really the most exciting thing I have seen in my career in the military medical service. There are several major initiatives whose end point, from what I see, will be that we will be delivering better care to Canadian Forces members, and that's the main point.

We're looking at a new method of delivering primary care in our facilities that will be trialled this winter. There is a major initiative to develop new policy governing a whole host of health care issues, to do what we call forced health protection, that is, preventing people from getting sick in the first place, which is an eminently good-sense approach to medical care.

We have several programs, again, facilitating the ease with which a Canadian Forces member can access care, also developing more continuity in the care he receives, which is a key problem for our members. For example, the case management initiative General Couture mentioned will be targeted at helping Canadian Forces members to navigate the maze of specialized medical services that are available to them and make sure that they get the right care they need at the right time.

We also have a major initiative, as I mentioned, looking at the mental health aspect of the care we deliver. We've enhanced and are enhancing our ability to look at specific deployment-related questions like some of the health concerns that get raised when our people go overseas.

From a health care perspective, we're looking at our system of delivering care really from end to end, and the process by which we're doing that is to look at what the best practices in the Canadian health care system are now. Where is the Canadian health care system headed? That's in a state of change as well. What are the best practices of other military organizations, and what is going to be the best thing for our Canadian Forces member, which is the focus of the whole effort?

Mr. Bob Wood: One more question—

The Chair: I'm sorry, I'm going to have to cut you off there, because you're well over your time.

Mr. Bob Wood: I would just like to know if the message is getting out to the field. Yes or no? Is it getting to the enlisted people?

Col Scott Cameron: I would say yes.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wood.

Mr. Plamondon.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Mr. Couture, following the events of September 11, the armed forces were given additional and different responsibilities from those they usually perform. I am a former teacher, and I taught for 19 years. When I had to teach a new subject, it was not easy to immediately come up with a way of teaching it.

The armed forces had to react very quickly. They have been involved at the international level with other armed forces. In Quebec and Canada, you have had to take preventive action, and particularly train new members of the military, because that is your job, or to train or provide specialized training for the current members of the military because of these terrorist incidents.

Three weeks ago, I was watching a television program describing the terrorist problem in France. France has suffered a number of terrorist attacks in the last several years. It has apparently developed quite an outstanding training program and has managed to take action against terrorism.

The Quebec Minister of Public Security, Mr. Ménard, at the official opening of the new police school in Quebec, located in my riding, in the lovely city of Nicolet, said in his speech that we would not necessarily be reinventing the wheel, but that we would be sending teams to France for training that would enable them to respond quickly to the new requirements placed on police officers.

• 1640

Did you think of taking similar action in the Canadian Armed Forces? Have you planned any training programs in countries such as France, which is apparently the most advanced country in the area of anti-terrorist efforts and the control of terrorists, who are still located on every continent? There are terrorists here in Canada, just as there are in France. Is this one of the options you considered in determining how to play your role properly, which is to counter terrorist activities and to avoid dramatic events such as those that happened on September 11?

LGen Christian Couture: First of all, you must understand that the roles played by the military and by the police are very different.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Yes, I do understand that.

LGen Christian Couture: I understand your analogy to the French police.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: In France, they made a very close connection between the military and the police for this specific effort.

LGen Christian Couture: France is organized differently. The French gendarmerie is a branch of the armed forces. Our current policy is to have a multi-purpose, combat-ready force able to deal with all types of situations. The current training is based on the threat we expect to face. You may ask me how we can prepare for a terrorist attack that is unpredictable. We do this by remaining flexible and multi-purpose.

You ask whether we are in contact with other countries. We are in touch with other countries all the time. We have exchanges with American and British training schools at the staff level and for command and control training. We also have exchanges with American and British units. We even have exchanges with France. Some of our officers hold positions in France. Some of our officers go for training to the equivalent of the Defence College that we have in Toronto, which is called the Joint Training Centre, for strictly military operations. So the answer is yes, we are in touch with other countries.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

[English]

Mr. Provenzano.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Lieutenant-General, I realize you are only part of a team that deals with the education, training, and professional development programs that are necessary for the forces. If you look at community colleges, post-secondary institutions, and the types of programs they deliver, sometimes one of the determining factors of whether some programming is offered is whether there is a critical mass. That may or may not be a consideration in the kinds of programs that are designed to answer the educational training and professional development requirements for the forces.

I'm wondering whether you are satisfied that the post-secondary facilities and the programs that are available at those facilities are integrated in a maximum sort of way in the educational training and professional development of the forces. It seems that there is money to be saved. It also perhaps offers another stream.

What I'm thinking of is this. You have the school at Camp Borden, as an example. At Camp Borden you have Canadian Forces receiving training with respect to nuclear, biological, and chemical weaponry. I don't know if that's the only place where you send recruits and take them to a place where they are relevant after that training. It seems to me that if you had a couple of streams, recruitment might be a little easier and less costly in terms of achieving your objectives.

• 1645

LGen Christian Couture: You should be part of my team, because that's exactly what we're doing.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: I'm glad to hear it.

LGen Christian Couture: Over the last couple of years we have been analysing the curriculum of community colleges across the country...in all of our technical trades in the forces such as vehicle technicians, communication specialists, electronics technicians, and so on and so forth. We have compared it to the forces requirement for our own technicians. We have a certain number of community colleges across Canada that have been accredited. The program they offer for the two-year program in some colleges and the one year in others fits our requirement.

When we recruit these people they will go through basic recruit training to become soldiers, sailors, or airmen or airwomen and then they will bypass our own school in Borden—except, perhaps, familiarization with our equipment might be different from what they have—and then be posted directly to the unit to become operational. There is a tremendous cost avoidance or cost saving in doing that.

We also have to entice those people to join the forces. As you may be aware, we have introduced some financial recruitment incentives to compensate for the knowledge we don't have to pay for. So, yes, we are doing it.

Do you have any idea of the number of colleges we have?

Brigadier General Terry Hearn (Director General, Military Human Resource Policy and Planning, Department of National Defence): There are 26 colleges currently across Canada that accredit us, and we're going for more.

Mr. Carmen Provenzano: That's excellent. I'm happy to hear it.

The Chair: We do have another witness coming before the committee this afternoon.

At this point, I'd like to thank you, Lieutenant-General Couture, and your colleagues, Colonel Cameron and Brigadier General Hearn, for your presence here today. We've appreciated your comments, and hopefully we'll see you back in front of this committee in the not too distant future.

Committee, I would suggest we take about a two-minute break before we hear from Mr. McManus.

• 1647

• 1651

The Chair: I'd like to reconvene the defence committee meeting.

We have before us Mr. Sean McManus, who is assistant to the general president of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

Mr. McManus, on behalf of the committee, welcome here today. We're very interested in getting your comments, particularly in relation to the joint threats I suppose we all face, in terms of fire fighters being first responders, and the interface with the military, where that's required.

You have the floor, Mr. McManus. We look forward to your comments.

Mr. Sean P. McManus (Assistant to the General President for Canadian Operations, International Association of Fire Fighters): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon.

On behalf of our general president, Harold Schaitberger, and the over 17,000 professional fire fighters and emergency response personnel we represent in Canada, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views on national security before this committee this afternoon.

I would like to begin by thanking each of you personally, on behalf of our 245,000 members across North America, for the many kind words of condolence and support that have come from Parliament Hill, in response to the loss of the more than 340 members of our association in the World Trade Center attacks on September 11. Those brave professionals showed us the finest examples of selflessness and public service when they gave their lives on that day so others might live. We, too, mourn their loss.

As we all know, the world was forever changed on September 11. A new and frightening reality was born, in the wake of the despicable attacks that resulted in the loss of some 5,000 innocent lives. The loss and devastation we face are enormous, but so too is the challenge that lies ahead in preparing the nation for the potential of additional terrorist attacks.

In this new kind of war, the battle lines are the communities and workplaces of our cities, and civilians are the explicit targets. In the wake of the attacks, the federal government has rightly identified national security as a priority, having appointed Foreign Affairs Minister John Manley to chair a new national security committee. The defence minister also plays a key role on this committee, as his portfolio includes emergency preparedness.

Consequently, the federal government has in recent weeks introduced a number of measures designed to prevent acts of terrorism on Canadian soil, and to respond to those incidents should they occur. The recent incidents of bioterrorism that have claimed multiple lives in the United States and gripped all of North America have underscored the urgent need for these measures.

In terms of major disaster response, or what is being called disaster mitigation, the federal government has focused its approach on the use of Canadian Armed Forces personnel, particularly through the funding of specialized and centrally located teams, such as the Joint Task Force 2 and other units designed to handle biological or chemical incidents.

While the IAFF does not disagree that our armed forces have a critical role to play in national security, we have to question the practicality and effectiveness of this approach for addressing a domestic terrorist threat.

A military team based in southern or eastern Ontario would be hours or days away from providing emergency assistance to an attack on Canadian soil. As seen in the attacks in New York and Washington, fire fighters are our nation's first responders. They are the first ones on the scene; they are our domestic defenders. When the alarm sounds, fire fighters are on the scene in four minutes, long before any military-based team can be assembled and deployed.

But the problem is that the vast majority of professional fire fighters are not adequately trained and equipped to respond properly to these incidents. As a result, the fire fighters and the citizens they are duty-bound to protect are unprotected from this threat. In short, there is a significant gap in this nation's ability to protect its citizens from terrorist attacks. Those who will be immediately on the scene are not properly prepared, and those who are currently equipped for the task are hours away from arrival, at the earliest.

While some cities like Ottawa have first-responder-based hazardous material teams in place, the majority do not. Frankly, in this new world it is just as easy to mail or otherwise deliver a biological agent, such as anthrax, to Ottawa as it is to Saint John, Winnipeg, or Surrey. The measures recently announced by the federal government would not add any protection, in this case.

The Ottawa hazardous materials response unit could serve as a model of a dedicated hazardous materials response team that is adequately trained and equipped to respond to any kind of biological or chemical incident, whether natural, industrial, or as a result of an act of terrorism. But ultimately, the Ottawa hazardous materials response unit and its dramatically increased level of activity in recent weeks should also serve to underscore the critical need for rapid biological and chemical response in Canadian cities, whether in the form of a dedicated team or broadly applied hazardous materials training for first responders in a particular community.

• 1655

As the topic of national security has been debated with some urgency in recent weeks, this gap has been acknowledged by senior armed forces personnel. Just this week the commander of the armed forces nuclear chemical and biological response team was quoted in the national media as saying there was a misunderstanding of his team's role. He fully acknowledged that fire fighters and other first responders were Canada's front line of defence in the immediate aftermath of an attack, not centrally located military teams.

The Chief of Defence Staff testified before this committee last month that the military's nuclear chemical and biological response team is not adequately staffed to perform its functions. I must add, however, that even if the military teams were fully funded, they would still not be the first ones on the scene; it would be Canada's fire fighters.

The associate deputy minister responsible for the Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection and Emergency Preparedness, in testimony before this committee three weeks ago, could not answer the question when asked how long it would take for the disaster assistance response team to respond to a particular incident.

These concerns I've highlighted were duly acknowledged in this committee's interim report and recommendations, which were released yesterday.

While addressing the needs of Canada's armed forces, the report explicitly refers to the important role that civilian first responders play in the immediate aftermath of an incident, calling them our first line of defence. The interim report discusses the critical importance, in terms of disaster mitigation, of the fastest response possible.

In discussing both natural disasters and terrorist attacks, the report states:

In both cases, first responders such as firefighters, police and medical personnel determine the extent of the disaster and the resources required to mitigate the consequences.

With the identification of national security as our priority and the acknowledgement that military-based teams are not designed to protect Canadians from the immediate aftermath of a biological or chemical attack, the government, whether through the national security committee, the defence ministry, another ministry, or a combination of the above, has to look at the critical role to be played by fire fighters and other first responders in disaster mitigation.

We commend the members of this committee for advocating that additional resources be allocated to increase funding for training programs for first responders. The creation of the national security committee presents the federal government with the perfect opportunity to address the problem of initial response with a fresh solution, which I will present to this committee in a few moments.

But I must also comment that training and equipping first responders for disaster mitigation specifically in response to terrorist attacks is not new, nor is it advocated solely by the first responder community. In 1998 a special Senate committee on security and intelligence was struck to assess Canada's risk from nuclear, biological and chemical attacks. The report of that committee, released in January 1999, contained the following recommendation:

Although much has been accomplished at the federal level, the role that first responders play in an incident is critical. First responders will, by definition, be first on a scene and have to manage a nuclear, biological or chemical incident until help...arrives. Depending on the circumstances, help may be some time coming. Most municipal police forces and other first responders make no claim to having an effective response capability against a nuclear, biological or chemical attack.

Further, the committee recommended:

We need to ensure first responders receive the protective and diagnostic equipment they require in order to be able to perform mass decontamination, have available approved drugs for first responders and casualties and sufficient quantities of ventilators and hospital beds for mass casualties, and to treat people with injuries who may also be chemically contaminated.

You have the rest of the quote from the special Senate committee in front of you. I'm not going to belabour those points. I think it's appropriate, though, to raise them with you.

A matter of national security should not be left for cities to fund. This need for training and equipment is tremendous and can no longer be borne solely by local jurisdictions. The government must recognize that terrorist attacks are not local incidents, but national tragedies that require a national response.

We have come here today not only to identify this problem for the committee—one I acknowledge you already addressed in your initial report—but to also present a clear and attainable solution that has proven to be effective, takes advantage of an existing infrastructure, and can be implemented on an extremely cost-effective basis with annual funding from the Canadian government in the amount of $500,000. Each of you has been presented with a report about the IAFF hazardous materials training for first responders program, which includes a proposal for that federal funding. We would ask you to review the material carefully.

• 1700

Through 2001, the IAFF has trained close to 30,000 emergency responders in the United States with the hazardous materials curriculum. More than 5,000 of these students were instructor trainees, who were then able to return to their communities and deliver training to their fellow emergency response workers, thus multiplying the effectiveness of the program. As a result of this effect, more than 500,000 first responders in the U.S. have been educated with the IAFF curriculum.

As this program is funded by the U.S. government through a series of grants, Canada's first responders are not eligible to participate. If the federal government were to provide annual funding, the training of Canadian emergency workers through this program could begin immediately. The curriculum already exists. The administration is already in place. The instructors are already lined up. Funding from the Canadian government would go strictly toward training Canadian emergency workers. The IAFF hazardous materials training for first responders program is just waiting to be utilized. All that is required is the funding.

Annual funding from this government would enable a significant number of Canada's first responders to be trained to a recognized standard for hazardous materials response. It would fully fund one hundred 24-hour courses in communities across Canada, providing 40,000 contact hours. It would train 1,600 students, including fire fighters, but also other emergency workers. At this funding level, a substantive portion of the nation's first response community could have the appropriate training in just five to ten years.

In conclusion, this committee has heard testimony from a number of sources that are all saying the same thing: first responders must be included in any disaster mitigation strategy. The IAFF adds its voice to those who recognize this critical need. Make no mistake, it's not our military personnel who are on the front lines of this new war. They are not the first line of defence. That job, by definition, belongs to the nation's fire fighters and other first responders. They are the ones who will be at the scene in the immediate aftermath of a terrorist attack. We urge the committee to recognize this and recommend to the defence minister that federal funding be made available to give fire fighters and other first responders the training and the tools they need to respond to a biological or chemical incident safely and effectively, permitting them, in turn, to protect the public.

Again, on behalf of the International Association of Fire Fighters, thank you for this opportunity to present our views on this vital national security issue. I'd be more than pleased to answer any questions you may have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McManus. I'm sure there will be lots of questions.

Mr. Benoit, followed by Mr. O'Reilly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to defer most of my time to my colleague, but I will ask questions later. I have lots of them.

However, I do want to take this time to thank you for the letter you sent thanking us for the tributes we paid to fire fighters and those lost, in particular in New York. You may think that it's not particularly meaningful, but I want you to know that it means a lot. We get some letters like that, and they're very much appreciated.

I want to say that in putting the response together to your letter, it really caused me to think about what it must have been like for those fire fighters after they knew the first tower had collapsed and they continued to go into that second building. They had to have known that it was going to collapse too. And responding to your letter I think really caused me to think about that once again, and very deeply. So I thank you and all fire fighters for the great service you provide.

I look forward to questioning you later, but I'll defer to my colleague for now.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): What has the response of the Government of Canada been to requests for emergency disaster pilot project funding from the municipalities in Canada? Have such projects been funded?

Mr. Sean McManus: At a municipal level?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Have the municipalities received federal funding for these pilot projects?

Mr. Sean McManus: Not specifically earmarked for hazardous materials training, not that we're aware of, no.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: What about the equipment, even the vehicles, the fire engines they have? Many municipalities have not been able to replace their equipment for decades. Are you finding that, through any existing programs, this is being addressed?

• 1705

Mr. Sean McManus: What we have found in the immediate aftermath of September 11 is a lot of nervous fire fighters. They're going to do their job, they're going to show up. The concern we have is that they're going to inadvertently put themselves in more harm's way, in turn creating more of an alarming situation than already exists simply because the level of training across Canada is not at a sufficient baseline level. What we're finding is that across Canada you have a real hodgepodge with respect to the level of expertise. Some municipalities—Ottawa, for example—have a good program, but outside of Ottawa and outside of the major metropolitan centres you really have a very basic level of training.

You've also identified another very important issue, which is it's one thing to have all the proper training, but if you don't have the equipment to be able to carry out that training, you're also at a disadvantage. And that's something we are working on, not only with the federal government but at a provincial level, to address those needs.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So the training programs do exist; it's just that the rural communities, or those outside the metro areas, aren't able to access them. Is that because the funding is required from the municipalities, or there just isn't the time or the number of people to be able to let them go to the courses?

Mr. Sean McManus: Right now there is no national hazardous materials training. What there is is on a department-by-department basis. So if you are in a large metropolitan department that has a dedicated hazardous materials team, you are getting that training. As the U.S. has shown, with the effectiveness of the program, the curriculum already exists. Right now the problem we have—and I brought some of the materials from the program that exists—is because it is all funded through U.S. Congress money, if we were to start doing the training for Canadian fire fighters we would put that grant in jeopardy. That's the problem.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: In other words, if the municipalities want their fire fighters trained, they have to pay for it out of their own pocket, when they're already trying to upgrade their water purification and waste situations?

Mr. Sean McManus: Yes. It's all coming out of a local fire department budget.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So you're asking for federal funding for equipment and training.

Mr. Sean McManus: Correct.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: What about the emergency preparedness plans? From community to community outside the metro areas, are there plans in place, and if so, do they have a chance to exercise them?

Mr. Sean McManus: There are plans in place, but if you're talking about a rural community and you're dealing with a suspicious substance, I dare say the level of familiarity and training right now is not there. You have a very basic first responder level of training, but in terms of how to handle it and things like that.... I can give you an example. We're fielding calls right now in the Canadian office from members across the country who are saying, “We've had a call from the post office with a suspicious package. How do we address it?” That is not the best way to be dealing with it. What you are hoping for with the implementation of a training program is that there would be a baseline level of knowledge and then you would have advanced training.

In addition to that, what we're advocating for in the United States, now that we have a curriculum in place for hazardous materials training, is weapons of mass destruction training. As the events of September 11 have shown, and subsequent events, that level of training needs to be brought into place as well.

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Gallant.

Mr. O'Reilly, I understand that as a volunteer fire fighter you would like to ask some questions.

Mr. John O'Reilly (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. McManus.

I was on a fire department for six years as what we call a volunteer, or a part-time, fire fighter. When we get to training, I think that's where the training breaks down, although you face the same dangers as a permanent fire fighter. You're usually with a group of maybe five or six other people, and after the first call goes out, then the volunteers section comes in. Some of them are well trained. I was an instructor in first aid, and there was an ambulance component there also. I think they were probably really well trained, although I do remember going to a chemical fire and trying to identify the flammable materials when they're burning in about eight different colours and you're trying to figure out which one is which. You put on your SCOT air pack and hope it will keep you from whatever it is you're breathing.

• 1710

So I've been there. I've been on the roofs. You get off when the hose starts to sink in and you realize there's a fire underneath you and the roof has caved in. So I've been there, done that, still have the T-shirt—and actually, I have the money clip they gave me for that.

When you're talking about first response and time and training, I think there has to be—and I've already made this pitch, by the way, to Paul Martin—some kind of expansion of the emergency measures organization, the JEP program that is available, and those types of things. I think that's where we can take advantage of further training—by putting money into that program so that the rural municipal fire departments such as I was involved in would have some other area where they could draw money. The fire department budget is a big budget in most municipalities. It comes out of a municipal conglomeration, and when the chair of the fire committee makes his pitch to the municipal finance chair, that's where the crunch comes. Sometimes, in small municipalities, there just isn't enough money.

I think it's time for some type of expansion of a federal program that would be geared towards rural fire departments. As I said, that's where my experience comes from. I've made that pitch to Paul Martin personally and have given him the numbers and so forth—for generators, for radio stations, and all the things that are involved with first response.

Concerning the hazardous materials team, I talked to the fire chief in Sunderland the other day and said “Do you have a HAZMAT team?” He said “Yes, we do. Basically, what we've learned is you stay up-wind if there's a hardware store on fire, because there are so many strange things burning in a hardware store—so many chemicals—that you don't know whether they are toxic or whatever.”

Some of them don't have that training, and I wasn't sure how we could get it on a federal level, because the budget comes out of the provincial and the municipal government. That's where the budget comes from—from taxes people pay.

I would like your comments on my dissertation as a former fire fighter and ask, do you think that would be a way we could get into the training end of it—through some of those programs that already exist?

Mr. Sean McManus: I appreciate those comments.

I can tell you this. We obviously would look to any type of creative funding solution for this situation. I can tell you that the great thing about the program, which already exists, is that everything is in place, and it's a train-the-trainer program. The effectiveness of this program is such that you don't have a professional group of instructors as the only ones who can do this training. Once you bring in a class and do that training, they're certified and can then go out and do the training. Very quickly, the multiplier effect kicks in, and you are able to train rural fire fighters, other front-line emergency workers, police officers and the like, so it's very effective.

Yes, in terms of looking for ways to resource that program, we would certainly be prepared to look at any model that was able to get that training into fire fighters' hands.

Mr. John O'Reilly: I think it's a valid point, that this should committee try to find some program that exists and put some pressure on to try to have it expanded, so that it could fit into some type of first response training without interfering with the provinces.

As you know, when we get into provincial jurisdiction we sometimes have problems in every province, because no provincial government seems to want the federal government in there. But they do want the money, so I think there is a way, if existing federal programs could be expanded, that the money would be there and wouldn't interfere with training that already exists.

I would look forward to expanding on that a little as far as our committee is concerned, to recognize that fire fighting is a dangerous occupation. Most fire fighters know that when they join it. You go in and sometimes get your eyes open very quickly.

• 1715

I would ask that we take a hard look at some way to make sure fire departments are equipped, whether it's bunker gear or air packs or new equipment that we have to look at—not to let the provincial government off the hook on it, nor municipalities, because they raise taxes to provide services, and among them are fire fighting, police, and all that type of first response. There's a lot to learn from September 11, for first responders and for governments.

Mr. Sean McManus: May I just follow up on that?

The Chair: Very briefly.

Mr. Sean McManus: When we looked at this situation, the reason we felt it appropriate to bring it to this committee's and other federal departments' attention is that if we're now going to address national security issues on a national basis it's perfectly timed to be able to start the training on a national basis. If it requires some cooperation between provincial and federal funding, so be it. The point is, we have it in place and we just want to start that training as quickly as possible.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McManus. Thank you, Mr. O'Reilly.

[Translation]

Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Louis Plamondon: I think that my friend O'Reilly identified the problem very well. I hope that the government will listen to your requests, because I think they are justified. It is a good thing that you came here to remind us that you are the ones on the front line. The first thing that came to mind throughout government and among most members of Parliament was defending ourselves against terrorism through the army, police forces, by increasing budgets, by suggesting new anti-terrorism training. But there is one thing we forgot. When an event happens, the firefighter is the first to arrive on the scene and he is in danger. He must have absolutely correct and adequate training as well as the equipment needed to carry out the job. That is what you are recommending.

Half a million dollars does not seem like a very high figure to me, especially since you are telling me that the course does not have to be developed since it already exists. We simply have to train people who in turn will train others throughout Quebec and Canada.

However, there is the issue that the colleague who spoke just before me raised regarding jurisdiction. Some times it is touchy to talk about this problem in the context of jurisdiction, but that is often where things break down. Then the money comes quickly. Given what I know about the situation in Quebec, the federal government cannot intervene directly with the municipality. It must go through an agreement with the province in order to talk to municipalities or give them money. The ideal solution would be for the federal government to transfer the money to the provincial government, so that they in turn can help the municipalities on that specific point, in accordance with their usual criteria. But we must understand that the federal government does not often tend to do that because it loses visibility. One could even say that visibility is what feeds government. The federal government seeks it out in this area as well.

Have you considered this problem of jurisdictions, and if so what were your conclusions?

[English]

Mr. Sean McManus: Yes, indeed we have. With any of the issues we have addressed or attempted to address at a federal level, invariably—and it really doesn't matter which issue it is—we run into that jurisdictional battle.

With respect to this issue, I would hope—and that's why we brought this forward in the manner we did—this would be a case where the jurisdictional lines we've traditionally seen would not be raised, simply because we are talking about an absolutely critical issue of fire fighter and public safety. Nobody wants a fire fighter to respond in an inappropriate manner to any of these incidents.

• 1720

You're right, when governments make a decision to fund a particular program, they certainly want the citizenry to know it came from that level of government. What we're saying is, in this new spirit of cooperation we think we have seen since the events of September 11, there would be a willingness to look at some type of a partnership in cooperation to get this level of training.

This level of training.... That's why we say the program is already in existence, because hazardous materials response is not something that knows a border. Hazardous materials response in Alberta is going to be the same as in Quebec, and the same as in Washington, D.C. We're saying it's there; we need just that seed money to get the program going.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Plamondon: Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

Mr. Wood.

Mr. Bob Wood: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I was looking over this stuff, and I wondered how far you've gone with this. Is this your first opportuntiy to come before a committee and express your views on the $500,000 that you think could do this?

Mr. Sean McManus: We had the opportunity to appear before the finance committee a week ago and make the submission there.

Mr. Bob Wood: In your mind, what kind of response did you get?

Mr. Sean McManus: It's difficult to gauge response because, as I'm sure you're familiar with, you're there with a number of different groups, and you are only given a small amount of time in which to present those views. The feedback we got was fairly positive, but again, because of six groups being there, it was difficult to gauge.

Mr. Bob Wood: I notice that in the United States they've divided up their funding into four different departments.

Mr. Sean McManus: Correct.

Mr. Bob Wood: If you're looking for $500,000—I've just jotted down some numbers here—I don't understand why you couldn't break it down the way the United States does and also approach these various departments for the money. Have you thought of that?

Mr. Sean McManus: Yes, we have. In fact, this morning we had a meeting with one of the health minister's assistants with respect to this program as well. So we have talked.

The department that we have yet to have a face-to-face meeting with is the Solicitor General's, and we hope to do that shortly. But all the—

Mr. Bob Wood: What about Transport Canada? Have you been there?

Mr. Sean McManus: We have sent a letter to the transport minister with respect to that.

Mr. Bob Wood: HRDC?

Mr. Sean McManus: Yes.

Mr. Bob Wood: As a hypothetical question, if you got this money—which I don't think should be a big problem, but it might be, I don't know—how are you going to do it? How are you going to rationalize all this stuff? How are you going to do this on a national basis? Who gets what? Does Alberta get more than Saskatchewan or Ontario? How are you going to train people and make sure that you get the rationale across Canada?

Mr. Sean McManus: We would immediately certify trainers in Canada who would start the training. How we would do that is we would bring in U.S. instructors to provide that level of training to Canadians, and then, on that basis, we would start providing training to departments right across Canada and other front-line emergency workers.

The brilliance of the program, like an awful lot of adult education programs now, is that we've developed it on a CD. It can be done through the web as well. So a lot of ways that you traditionally weren't able to reach individuals, you are now able to do with this curriculum.

Mr. Bob Wood: Are you saying there are no fire fighters that you know of who are trained in hazardous materials?

Mr. Sean McManus: Oh, there are, and what we would do is—

Mr. Bob Wood: Wouldn't they already be instructors? Couldn't they already instruct the program?

Mr. Sean McManus: We would make sure that they are fully familiar with the IAFF program and certify them as instructors in the program, and provide them with all the materials. What they don't have right now are the materials. They've probably been trained to the appropriate level for hazardous materials in accordance with NFPA, the National Fire Protection Association, and the other standard-making bodies that provide standards in hazardous materials. But we would make sure we have a Canadian contingent of instructors, which would take very little time to identify.

Mr. Bob Wood: I don't have any other questions. I think it's a great idea. It's just getting it together—

Mr. Sean McManus: Sure.

Mr. Bob Wood: —and implementing it, and maybe breaking up the funding so it doesn't give the impression that it costs a half a million dollars. But in the scheme of things, I think it's probably a great program and worth every cent that we can get into it, if we get into it.

• 1725

Do you have any problems with the province? Are there any other regulations that perhaps I don't know of that are a barrier to getting this thing going?

Mr. Sean McManus: No, we haven't identified any other problems. As I say, given the fact that hazardous materials response is a universal-type response, we haven't seen that, no.

The Chair: Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. McManus, on the first page of your report—and I don't think you read all of this, but I'm just going to paraphrase it—you're saying that in recent weeks a number of measures to help prevent acts of terrorism have been introduced by the federal government, but they tend to focus their approach on the use of the Canadian Armed Forces personnel, particularly through the funding of specialized and centrally located teams such as the JTF2 and the NDC team.

You go on to say that you don't think they should be the primary focus, because firemen are first-response people. Of course, it should be generally understood that the armed forces provide backup to the police and fire fighters. So that is a fair comment.

Do you think perhaps the reason the federal government focuses on those areas...? Because those clearly are federal areas of responsibility, and they're going to have to fork out the cash for them anyway. They don't want to take any more responsibility for fire fighters. They want to leave the funding to the provinces and municipalities.

We might have a rare opportunity right now to get by some of that jurisdictional thing, but I'd just like your comment on it.

Mr. Sean McManus: I'm sure the first reaction, given the traditional areas of jurisdiction, is to address those things that are in the federal sphere. There is no question about it. The health minister made some announcements in mid-October with respect to emergency room physicians and things like that.

Also, in the rush to make sure that the Canadian public is adequately safeguarded, there's been this knowing—and I don't think it's conscious by any stretch of the imagination—that the fire fighters are there, that they will do what they need to do. It's overlooked in the sense that, well, we have traditional areas of responsibility.

I do sincerely hope, and I'm hearing it from the members of the committee, that in this new realization there would be a forgoing of those traditional battles that have been fought with respect to who's responsible for what.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Yes. I certainly hope so.

We have in Vermilion, in a small town that I actually do my business in, a fire fighting school that trains fire fighters from across the country and from other countries. Because of the industry in Alberta that's built up on industrial fires, I'm really not aware how much they've done on chemical and biological training, but I know they'd be all too happy to get into that. So there are the institutions around.

Your idea sounds like a very responsible approach to this. I certainly hope we can get the federal government to become involved in some way in the training. Then from there, I guess, we'll see about materials. I do think that provincial governments and local governments are in the mood right now, because people are putting them in the mood to focus some resources on this too. So now's the time.

I do think it will be critical that you continue to push as hard as you can for a quick response, because six months from now, who knows? It may be worse or it may be half-forgotten. I think that would be a real mistake. Perhaps I could have your thoughts on that.

Mr. Sean McManus: As I say, given the rash of calls that fire fighters have received right across Canada, we think it is entirely appropriate, responsible, and in all the best interests. So whatever we face in the future, fire fighters will at least have a base-line level of knowledge to address these situations.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I have two sons. When they were around Mannville—it's a town of 700, fifteen minutes from Vermilion—they were in the volunteer fire department. They are about 15 members, even in a town of 700. They've done a great job. They've had to respond to some very serious fires. They have that training facility close by. Every week they're willing to take four hours out of their time for training. They're just hungry for whatever training they can get. These are volunteers. So any way we can upgrade the skills at all levels has to be a real benefit.

• 1730

Even in small towns there are threats, of course, to water supplies, primarily, and perhaps it's a matter of securing those supplies. The threats are there, and I certainly hope that your ideas here are listened to. I'll do what I can to see that they are.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

At this point, Mr. McManus, our time for this committee has expired. On behalf of the committee members, I'd like to once again thank you for being here. Your comments were very valuable for us.

As you may be aware, we did release the interim report yesterday. There is going to be a final report coming in the months ahead, and we're going to attempt to incorporate as many good ideas as we can into that final report. I'm sure your comments will figure in there somewhere.

Mr. Sean McManus: Thank you very much.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned.