National Defence Committee on June 6th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have 22 seconds.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

I'll give that time back, just to say thank you again, all of you, for being here today and for all of the amazing work that you continue to do for Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. May.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank all the witnesses for being here.

I'd also like to come back to the purchase of the fighter jets. Obviously, pilots will need to be trained, which takes time. I imagine that the process is already at least being considered.

I'd like to know if there's an amount in the current budget that's allocated to flight simulators.

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, I thank the member for her question.

In this year's estimates, money is allocated to continue the project, and there will eventually be tools to develop pilot training, but I don't think there's anything specific this year.

I'll give the floor to Mr. Crosby so he can add something.

[Troy Crosby]

Thank you for the question. Thank you, Deputy Minister.

You're correct. In the current year, there are no expenditures expected with training devices, but training devices will be part of the solution for the future fighter capability.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

I'll continue in the same vein.

Do we know whether the flight simulators to be used will be in Canada or the United States?

Has a comparison been done to know the costs of each of these options?

[Bill Matthews]

The products for developing pilot training are specific to the jets we'll be purchasing. I imagine it will be managed in the United States. That said, with respect to the F‑35 project in general, the Canadian industry will have a lot of opportunities to be involved. I'm not sure whether Canadian companies have done this yet.

Again, maybe Mr. Crosby can add something.

[Troy Crosby]

The training solution will be established at the bases in Cold Lake and Bagotville ultimately. The initial transition training for our aircrew will have to take place in the U.S., where those capabilities already exist, and that will give us time to set up our long-term solution here domestically.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'll stay on the same subject.

In Quebec, the company CAE has offered fighter pilot training in the past. Has the option of doing that training work in Canada and keeping the jobs here been completely ruled out?

Is there really an intellectual property issue with Lockheed Martin that completely prevents us from providing local training?

[Bill Matthews]

I'd say that it's a mix. During the project, the benefits for the Canadian industry were really important, and that's part of the process. That said, as we've already noted, the contract has yet to be negotiated in detail, so we have to wait for more details in that respect.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'd like to come back to the question I asked the minister a bit earlier. I'd like you to respond as well.

Are you able to tell me exactly what amounts in the budget have been allocated for recruitment and retention? Can you tell me exactly what they are and what they correspond to?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Thank you for your question.

No exact amount is allocated for the recruitment and retention of Canadian Armed Forces members, but a lot of initiatives are ongoing without a fixed amount being allocated to them in the budget. This is thanks to efforts by the chief of military personnel, who is improving the recruitment tool and the process for getting recruits into the Canadian Armed Forces more quickly.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

With respect to the Arbour report, the minister has already announced her intention to appoint an external monitor to oversee the implementation of the various recommendations. I was wondering whether the team responsible for monitoring the recommendations was also included in the budget.

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

I don't have any details or exact plans at this time, but as the minister said, the priority is to appoint an external monitor. I imagine that the amount allocated to that contract and that service will be negotiated with the individual who'll hold the position. That's when we'll have an idea of the amount needed for the contract.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin.

Ms. Blaney, you have six minutes.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I'll be coming back to you, Mr. Matthews, because it sounds like we have some things to figure out here.

You may not know this, but of course I'm normally a member of the committee for veterans affairs, where we have just completed a study on the marriage after 60 clause, and I want to figure this out. Brigadier-General Tattersall came to our committee and said this. I will quote it:

The Minister of National Defence, under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act, is responsible for the overall management of the pension plan, including the financial management of Canadian Armed Forces pension funds.

I'm just wondering if you could clarify that.

One of the challenges I'm having right now is that we also heard from somebody who works in National Defence and who said in her statements to us that the minister has not yet been briefed specifically on this issue. We also heard from Veterans Affairs staff, multiple ones—and I'm willing to quote them as well—who said that the marriage after 60 clause belongs under National Defence. Now I'm here, sitting in this room, listening to you tell me that it's actually Veterans Affairs.

Now, I agree that there definitely is some confusion, so could you just clarify that?

The next question I have is, how do these things get worked out? I am not clear where they belong. There are a lot of people advocating for this to change. It has a huge impact on veterans and on members who are serving. It also has big impacts on people who are working for public services. All of these folks cannot get married after 60. If they do, they have no supportive benefits left for the survivor. This issue continues to go on and on, and nobody lays claim to it.

Could I just get clarity on how the multiple agencies communicate to one another in order to figure out who this belongs to so that people who are fighting to get it changed know who to speak to?

[Bill Matthews]

Maybe I'll offer a few things here, Mr. Chair.

Number one, I do apologize, because it is confusing. It's joint, to a certain extent, so maybe I would offer that, just to be perfectly clear, we get back to the committee and to the member to show on paper the roles and responsibilities so that we all have a common understanding.

Given that the rule in question is about retired members, yes, the Minister of Defence is responsible for the financial aspect of the plans, but my understanding is that Veterans Affairs has a role in terms of the benefits. That's why it is a bit of a shared responsibility.

The final point—and I will then turn it back to the member, because I suspect she has more questions—is that my more recent history on this was back in 2019. There was a veterans benefit announced specifically to compensate members who were in the situation of getting married after 60. I know that National Defence was working actively with veterans to better understand the numbers around the survivor community. It's a related issue, but different from the one you're raising.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you. That's the survivors fund of $150 million, of course, of which none has been spent, and none of those people have had any supports or help. I appreciate your getting back to the committee, and I'll look forward to that. We'll come back again.

One of the things that I also have a lot of concern about, as I mentioned earlier, is the issue of housing. We know that Comox, in my riding, has the second-highest average market rental rate of all of the different wings and bases across the country.

I'm just wondering. As you're looking at building housing, residential housing units, on these locations, are you addressing that issue of where the market rate is so high that it's very hard for people to find a house either to buy or to rent? I want to be really clear. Those are often options and, like I said, people are in some cases moving very far away because there is nowhere else for them to live and they're having to travel.

When those actual steps are taken to prioritize, is that market rental rate taken into consideration?

[Bill Matthews]

I think demand is certainly a driver of where we spend the resources. I know that in Comox, as mentioned earlier, there were 12 new ones built this May, and there are 12 more in the works. The member is quite right that, depending on the geographic location in the country and the personal situation of the CAF member, there is a different interest in renting versus buying and getting access to armed forces provided housing. The vice-chief may have more to add on this point, but logic would say that market conditions drive where you spend your money, as well as the condition of the existing houses and whether they need to be renovated.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

One of the discussions that I heard the minister start talking about is military housing and privatization. I'm just wondering how those things...working with private groups to figure out how you're going to build that. Can you tell the committee what models you are using?

I noticed in the report that they talked about some different countries that are using this model. I'm really concerned about that, because if you move into the private sector, it will impact service members. One of the things that we know is that a lot of service members say that they like looking at military housing because it's affordable housing. Of course, if we're asking people to move across the country.... I've heard many times from the military that B.C. means “bring cash” because it's so expensive to live there, so how is that taken into consideration if you're going to be moving into a private model?

[LGen Frances J. Allen]

Mr. Chair, maybe I'll just add a few words if I could.

The member is absolutely correct about military housing being part of the solution space that we're taking a look at to make the cost of living, moving and the mobility that is part of the military lifestyle more affordable and less onerous for families as they move across the country.

The establishment of more residential housing units and improving the quality of existing residential housing units absolutely is part of the solution, but it is more than that of course. It is also about the cost of living and whether or not there are benefits and allowances that should be considered to make access to the private markets affordable, where there is housing that is available—because that is often an issue as well—something that is possible for CAF members.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have to leave it there.

Ms. Findlay, you have five minutes.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you all for being here today. I'll go to Deputy Minister Matthews, as the minister referred this question to you.

Is the government prepared to lose all the Canadian jobs at CAE and its partners to have our Canadian pilots trained in Europe, in places such as Italy and Britain?