Evidence of meeting #84 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was number.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence
We're working on that issue, looking at whether we should offer an incentive to encourage people to move to places that aren't as desirable.
It's one of my many initiatives.
Thank you.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
From what was said before by Mr. Tremblay, talking about trying to find all of these different ways to ensure that roofs are made available, and thinking about that, I had previously asked the minister about the option of transferring the somewhat larger amounts of underdeveloped DND property to not-for-profits, co-operatives, and affordable housing, using non-market housing near those bases.
Can you tell us if there has been an analysis done on that, and what that might suggest?
4:30 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National Defence
Mr. Chair, we're working very closely with the Crown agency that's responsible for real estate and development within the federal family, so to speak. It's the Canada Lands Company. It's been a very busy time for it. Obviously, there's a lot of activity on this front right now.
Yes, we are working very closely with CLC, as we call it—the Canada Lands Company—to identify surplus properties that we have now that would lend themselves to housing, and that are in markets where there's the greatest demand and the greatest chance of a successful project. CLC in turn works with some of the organizations you just described, ma'am.
The answer is yes, we are doing that work right now.
4:30 p.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
Perfect.
One of the folks who has reached out to me has had some issues with moving, as we were talking about earlier and as Madame Normandin was talking about. In 2021, Mr. Sewell was medically released, but he had a surgery scheduled for shortly after his release. He knew he wouldn't be able to find a new family doctor to reschedule that surgery. It would have been so difficult to keep that in line with his first move, so he tried to delay his move until he had recovered from the surgery, but then he was denied that compensation. Even years later, he hasn't received it. I'm sure he is one of many who fall into that position.
Can we talk about how flexible that access is to those funds? Are you working on any ways to compensate those who have missed out because of the lack of medical positions and doctors we have to serve our armed forces?
4:35 p.m.
Director General, Compensation and Benefits, Department of National Defence
Mr. Chair, if I understand the context of the individual—because, obviously, I can't recall all of the names of those who have potentially raised a question—I believe what you're referring to is called an "intended place of residence move". When you have served a certain number of years or if you are released medically, you have the entitlement to relocate to a location that is your choice. That benefit is for two years. Everyone is extended that benefit for two years.
If, within that two-year time frame, you realize there is a reason why you may not be able to complete that move—and there are very specific criteria; medical is one of those that we would consider—you can request that my organization grant a one-year extension. That means that once you're released, you now have three years.
If you find that there are still implications—a lot of the time, medical makes it extremely complicated—you can request us to approve another three years. That is at the chief military personnel level. In total, that means an individual would have almost six years as a time frame. Again, there are very specific criteria that we consider for whether we would approve that or not for an extension.
Thank you.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Thank you.
I want to go back to some of the numbers here. I found your responses to Mr. Bezan quite troubling.
The budget for the entire capitalization of housing is $40 million. Is that correct? I think that's what you said.
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
I said we get a $40-million-a-year baseline from the department.
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
It's 11,006 and a bit.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
That's correct.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Every year, about 200 houses or more are dropping into “below average”. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
Over the course of the years of the pandemic, which are the years we're talking about, that would have been correct, but this year, our numbers are actually decreasing.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
That are going into “below average” condition.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
If you have to maintain all of these homes just in their current condition on $40 million, that leaves you with enough to build 20 houses a year. Is that correct?
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
Thank you for the question.
If I can contextualize, perhaps it might assist the discussion.
Recapitalization for us is the money we get from the department to extend the life of the assets. The repairs, condition and planned maintenance for those assets are actually not paid for by the department; they are generated from our revenue stream within the agency and paid for internally.
We control the degradation or decrease in our condition assessment by focusing our investments from our revenues to deal with just that problem. We turn our revenue stream over back into the portfolio to keep it on track and prevent it from degrading.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
There was an information request. Ms. Kramp-Neuman asked you about it. The response to that ATIP was a lengthy response of dozens of pages, yet only Esquimalt and Greenwood were referenced in that ATIP. Why?
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
I repeat that I am not aware of the details of that particular ATIP.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Okay. You're aware that your department is required, by law, to answer questions that are put to it through access to information requests.
4:35 p.m.
General Manager, Infrastructure and Technical Services, Department of National Defence
Yes, I am. I am just simply advising that I don't have the answers with me.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Pat Kelly Conservative Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB
Okay. Could it possibly be that your department only knew the wait-list information for those two bases and that you just simply don't even know how many are on the wait-lists for all the other bases?
4:40 p.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Infrastructure and Environment, Department of National Defence
Mr. Chair, I feel that we're at a bit of a disadvantage here because we don't have the ATIP request in front of us. We would be happy to provide you with wait-list information by site. We can do that. We don't have the information from the ATIP.
