National Defence Committee on Nov. 30th, 2023

[BGen Virginia Tattersall]

Mr. Chair, that change in policy came into effect, I believe, in 2018. It replaced a far more difficult and onerous system that required the member to take on the onus of proving it was a depressed market and there should therefore be reimbursement for the losses. The $30,000 makes it much easier now. The member only has to demonstrate that there has been a loss and can then be reimbursed up to that maximum of $30,000.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

I know that, in some of the case studies—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Ruff. You've obviously been studying the techniques of some of your colleagues on expanding.

Mr. Collins, go ahead for five minutes, please.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Chair. Through you to the witnesses, I'll ask this question of whoever chooses to answer it.

I'm concerned about the numbers as they relate to the number of units required.

We're all reading from the same documents and have access to parliamentary budgets and reports prepared by the Auditor General. We're all using the same media accounts. We pull numbers from those documents. I've heard, sitting here in the meeting today, that anywhere between 4,000 and 6,000 units are required. I've heard the number 7,000. Of course, there was reference to the Auditor General's report, where that came from. These numbers are used in public documents and the media, then become “the number”. There's a wide range there. Of course, the analysts are going to present a report to the committee. I want to nail down what that number is and what it represents. This is from a transparency perspective so that, when we prepare our report recommendations, we know with some certainty what that number is.

I ask this through you, Mr. Chair: How do we drill down to get a number that truly represents how many units are required? Is it 4,000, 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 units?

[Serge Tremblay]

Mr. Chair, I will clarify that the number of people—with rounding errors or depending on how it gets reported—gets a little confused. The number was decided in 2018 by the Department of National Defence living accommodation board, which is the authority for setting the requirement for the department.

The number—it was a range that was approved—was 17,000 to 19,000 RHUs across the country. We derive that number based on the principles that the chief of the defence staff issued for the justification of an operational requirement for the housing program for the CAF. When we presented the numbers, the 17,000 to 19,000 was quoted. You will start seeing 5.2k versus 7.2k as the range. That would have been because of what the portfolio was in 2018. The 17,000 minus what we had as a portfolio was the gap to be bridged.

There was always an intent—and it remains the intent—that once the living accommodation policy was finalized, which was one of the other findings in the Auditor General's report, we would revalidate the housing requirement. I will remind the committee that the numbers we came up with were prepandemic. The world has changed, and we appreciate that we will have to revalidate what that requirement means. We will be doing that.

The policy is expected to be finalized by the end of this fiscal year, by the end of March, at which point in time we will have 12 months, according to our remit to Parliament, to come up with a resource plan to bridge the gap, which means that we would have to redefine what that gap is.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

For the purposes of writing and preparing this report, Mr. Tremblay, what number do you suggest in that range of 4,000 to 7,000 that has been referenced for today's committee meeting?

[Serge Tremblay]

Thank you for the question.

The requirement for the Canadian Armed Forces housing at this moment is 17,000 to 19,000.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Okay.

You said today that “it was never the intent” of the agency to build 7,000 units. That was in response, I think, to Mr. Bezan's earlier question. You were very clear, I think, that this includes both a requirement from the agency in the units that you build on an annual basis but also what you can seek to secure from the private sector for members who require housing or who are seeking housing from the private sector.

Can you expand on that in terms of that split? When the agency hears questions like you heard today and you go back to your team, what are your expectations? What does the organization intend to build and what do you expect to secure from the private sector to meet that number if in fact resources are provided in whole or in part?

[Serge Tremblay]

Mr. Chair, I was in the room when the decision was made or the requirement was approved for the 17,000 to 19,000 RHUs. Discussions surrounded how much of that portfolio we needed to be owned and how much of it should be sought elsewhere. It was a philosophical discussion as far as it was difficult to decide how much we should own.... I don't believe that we are still fixed to an actual number. However, we have been operating off a concept to have about 1,300 units built over the course of 10 years, based on the funding that we would be requesting from the department.

I would caution the committee that CFHA doesn't build as we see fit. We try to build to match the department's requirements and as it can be resourced. We try to optimize the capital funding that we do get. As I mentioned earlier, we try to do a balancing act between recapitalizing our portfolio of 11,600 units as well as build new. Last year, in the face of the crisis—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sorry. We're going to have to leave the answer there. Thank you.

We have Madame Normandin for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to ask some specific questions about Saint‑Jean, which I represent. I'd like to talk about separation expenses, which were mentioned earlier and that, in a best-case scenario, enable people to avoid moves and the associated expenses.

My riding is home to the Royal Military College Saint-Jean and the military base that has the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School. I know the school has a hard time recruiting instructors.

Separation expenses went from about $1,700 to $1,150 for housing in Saint‑Jean. The amount went down, but for places 20 minutes away from Saint‑Jean, the amounts went up. As a garrison town, that sends us the wrong message. It also sends the wrong message when it comes to recruiting instructors, for people who are just joining the Canadian Armed Forces.

First of all, are you aware of this situation?

[BGen Virginia Tattersall]

Yes, I'm well aware of the situation. I'm expecting a Treasury Board decision about it today.

We asked for an extension to enable people to keep their housing unit without worrying about not getting the difference between the previous monthly rate and the monthly rate that was approved in June.

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

If I understand correctly, the separation expense for people just joining is reduced. That $1,150 to find housing in Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu with Internet, garage and so on does not reflect the market at all.

Apparently the reduction was justified by a market study. Is it possible to get a copy of that market study? I'd also like to know if a market study was done for all the other municipalities in the Canadian Forces General Message 106/24. The amount went up for some municipalities. Saint‑Jean‑sur‑Richelieu is one of the few for which it went down. I'd like to know if a market study was done for all the municipalities in that message.

[BGen Virginia Tattersall]

We can certainly provide you with a copy of the report. The report covered every place in Canada where we have Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes,

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I want to quickly get back to the situation I was talking about regarding Mr. Sewell. You had been talking about the program for covering moving funds, but that program had actually changed. The person I was talking about actually got caught in a time before that change in policy.

Is there any sort of reconsideration that could be attempted for people who have found themselves now out of luck, because they didn't happen to fall within the timelines before the changes were made to make that policy better?

[BGen Virginia Tattersall]

No. There is no recourse to change the current policy. The current policy did not provide for a grandfather clause, so when the policy was approved for a change, it was for whomever had a valid intended place of residence request in at that time. We have moved into the new policy, so for those who had already completed it, we can't go back to change that. So no, there is no recourse.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Those people are just out of luck, apparently, and, unfortunately, in a really harsh way.

Okay, fair enough.

One of the things you talked about in your exchange with Mr. Fisher and that I want to get a better understanding of is jobs for military family members. We have talked about that before at this committee. I had asked the minister, and I think it was the deputy minister who answered. Ultimately, those are non-public funds for employees that are covered by some of these military families. Unfortunately, they are not paid the same basic minimum wages. I've challenged numerous people at this committee who have run that program.

Can you tell me whether or not that's been changed yet. so that they are, in fact, paid a minimum wage standard?

[BGen Virginia Tattersall]

No. I cannot comment on your question, because it is outside of my lanes of responsibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

Mr. Melillo, you have five minutes, please.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and it's a pleasure to join the committee today.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It is the elite committee on the Hill. I want you to know that.

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I'm getting that vibe. It's good to be here.

I appreciate our witnesses, as well, for a very important conversation here today.

I want to note some information we received from an ATIP. It was a briefing note dated May 5, 2022, and dealt with the presentation of 14 Wing's future housing requirements to the RCAF and living accommodation board.

Its conclusion stated that "14 Wing has an established requirement for an additional 34 housing units. This is on top of the planned builds for attrition. Both types of construction need to be advanced faster than the current 10-year timeline for a new RHU construction. The type of RHU growth also needs to be tailored to the needs of 14 Wing personnel so that single members are not occupying units better suited for small families."

In the email chain for the above, it was indicated that at Greenwood people were told they needed to wait two to eight months for a unit to be prepared for a new tenant after the old one left. I would imagine there would be simple renovations that needed to take place.

What would be the rationale for those renovations to take up to eight months?

[Serge Tremblay]

Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, I got a little bit confused on the facts. Unfortunately, again, I'm not familiar with this particular ATIP, if it were from 14 Wing—

[Eric Melillo, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

It was in an email from the department. It's referring to Greenwood specifically. They're saying to folks there that they need to wait eight months to prepare a unit for a new tenant. Do you have any information on what would cause that eight-month delay, in terms of what renovations would be needed?